From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kearse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 7, 1992

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Pine, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant's right to a public trial (US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4) was abridged when the trial court, without further inquiry, acceded to the prosecutor's request that the court be closed to the public during the testimony of an undercover police officer (see, People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946). Although the right to a public trial is neither inflexible nor absolute, the discretion to limit the public nature of judicial proceedings is to be "sparingly exercised" (People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). There should be no closure unless preceded by an inquiry careful enough to assure the court that defendant's right to a public trial is not sacrificed for less than compelling reasons (People v Jones, supra, at 414-415). Following such an inquiry, the court's reasons for ordering closure must be sufficiently articulated to permit appellate review (Waller v Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 45; People v Clemons, 78 N.Y.2d 48, 52; People v Kin Kan, 78 N.Y.2d 54, 58, rearg denied 78 N.Y.2d 1008; People v Cordero, 150 A.D.2d 258, 259, affd 75 N.Y.2d 757; People v Williams, 178 A.D.2d 958, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954). Where, as here, the trial court failed to inquire fully into the prosecutor's request that the courtroom be closed to the public and failed to articulate any basis for its ruling on the record, reversal and a new trial are required irrespective of prejudice (People v Kin Kan, supra, at 59; People v Jones, supra, at 415-417).


Summaries of

People v. Kearse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 7, 1992
186 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Kearse

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ELLIOTT KEARSE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 7, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 445

Citing Cases

People v. Dashnau

Defendant's conviction must, therefore, be reversed (see, People v Brown, supra, at 395; People v Thomas,…

People v. Ballard

We further conclude that reversal is mandated because the court closed the courtroom during the testimony of…