From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Zenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1987
134 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 30, 1987

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court improperly allowed the People to impeach two of their witnesses after testimony damaging to the People's case was elicited on cross-examination. Under CPL 60.35 (1), the People can impeach their own witness only if the witness gives damaging testimony during the course of direct examination, and then only with a signed statement or sworn oral testimony. However, the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which included the testimony of two police officers, the driver of the other car, and an acquaintance of the defendant that he was intoxicated (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242).

The defendant's claim that the closure of the courtroom during the charge deprived him of his right to a public trial has not been preserved for appellate review. In any event, it is without merit. We agree with the dissenting Justice in People v. Venters ( 124 A.D.2d 57, 61) that this "long-established custom aimed solely at better jury comprehension of the law" does not violate the defendant's right to a public trial. The public, including the press, is not prevented from being present during the charge; they are simply prevented from entering or leaving the courtroom during this period. The cases of Waller v. Georgia ( 467 U.S. 39), and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. ( 464 U.S. 501), insofar as they involved the complete exclusion of the press and public during portions of the proceedings, are inapposite. There is no such total exclusion involved here. This procedure is simply the exercise by the trial court of its power to impose a reasonable limitation on access to the courtroom so as to maintain a quiet and orderly atmosphere for a trial (see, Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 581, n 18).

The defendant's final contention, that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive, is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86). Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Zenger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1987
134 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Zenger

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JESSE ZENGER, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
521 N.Y.S.2d 535

Citing Cases

People v. Sanders

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of rape in the first degree…

People v. Brown

We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of…