PEOPLE v. OLIVER

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Wayne OLIVER, Appellant.

Decided: November 24, 1997

Before PIZZUTO, J.P., and SANTUCCI, JOY and FLORIO, JJ. Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Jojo Annobil, of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Linda Cantoni and Gregory Tuss, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered November 21, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court improperly closed the courtroom was not preserved for appellate review since the defendant never raised that contention at trial (see, People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027;  People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9).   In any event, this contention is without merit.   The officer testified that he expected to return to the area where the defendant had been arrested, that the officer had received threats, and that he took several precautions to preserve his identity in his frequent court appearances.   These facts satisfied the criteria set forth in People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 442, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027 (see also, People v. Skinner, 204 A.D.2d 664, 612 N.Y.S.2d 419;  People v. Jamison, 203 A.D.2d 385, 610 N.Y.S.2d 74).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5] ).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard