PEOPLE v. GREEN

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Marvin GREEN, Appellant.

Decided: November 24, 1997

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, McGINITY and LUCIANO, JJ. Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Bertrand J. Kahn, of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Philip C. Semprevivo, Jr., of counsel;  Christine E. Connolly, on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered June 22, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it closed the courtroom during the trial testimony of two undercover officers.   Both officers testified at the Hinton hearing (People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 334 N.Y.S.2d 885, 286 N.E.2d 265, cert. denied 410 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 970, 35 L.Ed.2d 273), inter alia, that they were still active in undercover work in the area of the defendant's arrest, that they had lost subjects in the area, and/or had identified suspects who had not yet been arrested, that they entered the courthouse discretely, and that they feared for their safety if they were compelled to testify in open court (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027;  People v. Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 571 N.Y.S.2d 436, 574 N.E.2d 1042;  People v. Wells, 225 A.D.2d 567, 638 N.Y.S.2d 745).   The trial court did not err in failing, sua sponte, to explicitly consider lesser alternatives to closure (see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard