Opinion
March 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered; no questions of fact have been raised or considered.
We agree with the defendant's contention that his right to a public trial was violated when the trial court, over defense counsel's objections, ordered that certain spectators be excluded from the courtroom while the complaining witness was questioned with respect to a particular sexual act allegedly practiced by this witness and the defendant. The prosecutor had argued that this testimony would prove "extremely embarrassing" to this witness were she compelled to testify before the defendant's friends and family members, who were present in the courtroom.
While a trial court is vested with the discretionary power to direct the closure of a courtroom upon a showing of an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced if the courtroom remains open (see, People v. Guevara, 135 A.D.2d 566), a closure cannot be tolerated unless "preceded by an inquiry careful enough to assure the court that the defendant's right to a public trial is not being sacrificed for less than compelling reasons" (see, People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 414-415, cert denied 444 U.S. 946).
The trial court, in the instant case, failed to conduct such an inquiry nor did it articulate an overriding interest or specific findings sufficient to warrant closing the courtroom. (See, People v. Thomas, 130 A.D.2d 692; People v. Baldwin, 130 A.D.2d 666. ) Instead, the court relied exclusively upon the prosecutor's speculative conclusion that the testimony sought to be elicited might be embarrassing to the complainant. This representation was, however, insufficient to justify the closure of the courtroom to specific spectators and did not constitute a "showing of compelling necessity" (see, People v. Warren O., 86 A.D.2d 895). Thus, reversal of the conviction is required and a new trial is hereby ordered.
In view of our disposition herein, the defendant's remaining contentions need not be addressed. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.