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. Roberto BALLESTEROS, a/k/a Jose Rojas, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered May 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 to 9 years, and judgment of the same court (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered June 21, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in closing the courtroom to the general public during the testimony of the undercover officer, based on the officer's testimony at the Hinton hearing that he was then engaged in undercover operations in the area of the instant arrest, that he expected to return to the area after the trial to continue undercover assignments in the area, and that he received threats in the past while working in the area and feared for his safety if his identity as an undercover officer, which he took pains to conceal, were revealed in open court. This evidence satisfied the standard articulated in People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027, which is the standard applicable to this case (see, People v. Lugo, 233 A.D.2d 197, 650 N.Y.S.2d 102, 103).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 10, 1997
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)