Opinion
May 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLauglin, J.).
This appeal arose after defendant was convicted of selling more than six ounces of heroin to a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency.
It was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court, after conducting a hearing, to have closed the courtroom to the public during the trial testimony of the confidential informant (People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; cf., People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946; People v Cordero, 150 A.D.2d 258, affd 75 N.Y.2d 757). At the hearing, the informant testified that he feared for his safety, that he had been threatened by defendant and that he was still active in a number of investigations, the targets of which were likely out on bail. The People also submitted an affidavit in which they confirmed the role played by the informant in the ongoing investigations and added that his testimony in open court would effectively impede his usefulness as an informant.
Nor was it error to deny defendant's request for an agency charge. No reasonable view of the evidence in this case permits the inference that defendant acted as anything other than a principal in the drug sales (People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v. New York, 439 U.S. 930; People v. Dore, 129 A.D.2d 992; cf., People v. Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, cert denied 439 U.S. 958).
Finally, we find that defendant's sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.