Summary
using New York's older "compelling reasons" test superseded by Waller
Summary of this case from Ayala v. SpeckardOpinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in closing the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. We disagree. The record demonstrates that the court engaged in a careful inquiry of the witness (see generally, People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 414, cert denied 444 U.S. 946). The officer testified that his identity as an undercover officer had never been disclosed to the public in previous trials, that he was involved in ongoing narcotics operations and pending investigations, that he was still working in the community, and that he believed his life would be in jeopardy if his identity were made public. Accordingly, the testimony established the existence of compelling reasons to support the closure of the courtroom (see, People v McLennon, 156 A.D.2d 478; People v Bowden, 156 A.D.2d 372; People v Osborne, 154 A.D.2d 484; People v Bostick, 150 A.D.2d 707).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.