People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 15 June 1995 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andre BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
A. Middlemiss, for respondent.
S.M. Altman, for defendant-appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered March 3, 1993, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of three counts of kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 21 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's contention that the trial court erred in closing the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer is not preserved for appellate review, since defendant voiced only general objections to the closure and did not cross-examine the detective or otherwise challenge the People's proof that his safety would be endangered by testifying in open court (see, People v. Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 550, 429 N.Y.S.2d 628, 407 N.E.2d 472; People v. Diaz, 197 A.D.2d 441, 604 N.Y.S.2d 701, lv. denied82 N.Y.2d 893, 610 N.Y.S.2d 160, 632 N.E.2d 470), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Kuhlmann
...this argument was rejected by the Appellate Division because it was "not preserved for appellate review," People v. Brown, 216 A.D.2d 100, 101, 627 N.Y.S.2d 925 (1st Dept.1995), and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, People v. Brown, 86 N.Y.2d 872, 635 N.Y.S.2d 953, 659 N.E......
-
People v. Del Valle
...is not preserved for our review (see, People v. Pollock, 50 N.Y.2d 547, 550, 429 N.Y.S.2d 628, 407 N.E.2d 472; People v. Brown [Andre], 216 A.D.2d 100, 627 N.Y.S.2d 925; People v. Portilla, 190 A.D.2d 827, 828, 593 N.Y.S.2d 831, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 852, 606 N.Y.S.2d 604, 627 N.E.2d 526), a......
-
People v. Jackson
...Defendant's complaint about the closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony is unpreserved (People v. Brown, 216 A.D.2d 100, 627 N.Y.S.2d 925), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that closure was proper since th......
- People v. Lozano