Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ada VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered July 17, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and, sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.
The court properly granted closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer. The People elicited a sufficient basis, including the fact that the undercover officer had continuing operations in a limited geographical area that included the area of defendant's arrest, to warrant closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer (People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492, cert. denied 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413).
The court's prompt actions, including curative instructions, prevented any possibility of prejudice arising from testimony suggesting that defendant or her codefendant might have been previously known to the police and defendant's mistrial motion was properly denied (see, People v. DeMauro, 48 N.Y.2d 892, 893, 424 N.Y.S.2d 884, 400 N.E.2d 1336).
The court properly denied defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon testimony that defendant contends improperly bolstered the undercover's identification testimony, since the challenged testimony did not constitute improper bolstering in the context of this buy and bust case (People v. Eastman, 239 A.D.2d 276, 277, 658 N.Y.S.2d 846). In any event, the trial court sustained objections, struck much of the complained-of testimony and gave prompt curative instructions (see, People v. Watkins, 212 A.D.2d 357, 622 N.Y.S.2d 513, lv. denied, 85 N.Y.2d 981, 629 N.Y.S.2d 742, 653 N.E.2d 638).
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 20, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)