From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 5, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a public trial (see, US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4) when the trial court closed the courtroom to the public, including the defendant's family, during an undercover police officer's testimony. We agree. The officer's testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911), was insufficient to satisfy the criteria of People v. Martinez ( 82 N.Y.2d 436). Accordingly, the trial court erred in directing closure of the courtroom, and a new trial is required (see, People v. Martinez, supra; People v Huggins, 204 A.D.2d 484).

In light of our determination that a new trial is required, it is unnecessary to address the defendant's remaining contentions. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DERRICK SMITH…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 335 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 989

Citing Cases

People v. Martinez

The defendant was denied his right to a public trial ( see, U.S. Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12;…

People v. Hopson

The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established. We agree with the defendant that…