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, etc., Respondent, v. Andrew GAYLE, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered May 23, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The defendant correctly contends that he was denied his right to a public trial (see, U.S. Const., 14th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4; People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335, cert. denied 444 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 307, 62 L.Ed.2d 315) because the Supreme Court excluded his girlfriend from the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. When the defendant objected to her exclusion the People offered no evidence that she would be a threat to the officer, nor did the court make findings that the girlfriend would pose a threat to the officer (see, People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 58-59, 571 N.Y.S.2d 436, 574 N.E.2d 1042; People v. Gutierez, 86 N.Y.2d 817, 633 N.Y.S.2d 470, 657 N.E.2d 491; People v. Pankey, 219 A.D.2d 737, 631 N.Y.S.2d 766; cf., People v. Dorcas, 218 A.D.2d 813, 630 N.Y.S.2d 796). Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
The trial court also erred by permitting the People to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior sale of drugs at the same location during the 21-month period preceding the incident giving rise to the present charges, as relevant to the defendant's identification because of the unique modus operandi involved in selling drugs at the same location. Such behavior was not sufficiently unique to warrant the introduction of these prior uncharged crimes (see, People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241, 251, 455 N.Y.S.2d 575, 441 N.E.2d 1093; People v. Condon, 26 N.Y.2d 139, 144, 309 N.Y.S.2d 152, 257 N.E.2d 615).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: March 24, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)