People v. Clemons
Decision Date | 22 June 1990 |
Citation | 162 A.D.2d 948,557 N.Y.S.2d 179 |
Parties | , 17 Media L. Rep. 2103 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Isaiah CLEMONS, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gerald T. Barth by Joseph LaFay, Syracuse, for appellant.
Robert E. Wildridge by James Maxwell, Syracuse, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DENMAN, BALIO and LOWERY, JJ.
Closure of the courtroom during the complainant's testimony deprived defendant of his constitutional and statutory right to a public trial (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4). Although the Legislature has provided for the discretionary exclusion of the public in rape cases (Judiciary Law § 4), the court's bare reliance on that section is an insufficient predicate for closure (see, People v. Jelke, 308 N.Y. 56, 123 N.E.2d 769). In People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 414-415, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335, cert. denied sub nom. New York v. Jones, 444 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 307, 62 L.Ed.2d 315), the court stated that closure must be preceded by careful inquiry to insure that defendant's right to a public trial is not sacrificed for less than compelling reasons.
Here, the trial judge closed the courtroom over defendant's objection solely upon the prosecutor's statement that closure was necessary "due to the nature of (complainant's) testimony". That statement merely indicated that this was a rape case, and was insufficient to inform the court of factors that might support a closure determination. For example, in our recent case of People v. Roberts, 151 A.D.2d 1028, 542 N.Y.S.2d 90, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 817, 546 N.Y.S.2d 575, 545 N.E.2d 889, although not articulated in our memorandum decision, it was determined that the trial court properly closed the courtroom after inquiry revealed that the victim had been threatened and that she was unwilling to testify unless the courtroom was closed.
Where, as here, the court failed to conduct an inquiry into relevant factors and failed to articulate a reason for its decision to close the courtroom to the public, there must be a reversal even though no prejudice is demonstrated (see, People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 415-417, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335, supra; People v. Baldwin, 130 A.D.2d 666, 515 N.Y.S.2d 597). To the extent that our decision in People v. Dawson, 84 A.D.2d 957, 444 N.Y.S.2d 333, lv. denied 57 N.Y.2d 958, cert. denied sub nom. Dawson v. New York, 458 U.S. 1112, 102 S.Ct. 3496, 73 L.Ed.2d 1375 can be read as excusing the need for an explanation of the reasons for closure and as authorizing closure merely because the case is a type listed in Judiciary Law § 4, that decision will no longer be followed.
There is no merit to defendant's contention that the proof was legally insufficient to support his conviction for kidnapping in the second degree (see, People v. Dodt, 92 A.D.2d 1063, 462 N.Y.S.2d 275, revd. on other grounds 61 N.Y.2d 408, 474 N.Y.S.2d 441, 462 N.E.2d 1159; Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 39, Penal Law § 135.00). Because a new trial is granted, we do not address the remaining issues raised on appeal.
All concur, except Callahan, J., who dissents and votes to affirm, in the following Memorandum: I cannot agree with the majority view that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry and failed to articulate a reason for its decision to close the courtroom to the public in this rape trial. The record reveals that prior to the complainant testifying the following colloquy took place:
Judiciary Law § 4 allows a court, in its discretion, to close the courtroom in a rape or sodomy case. The Court of Appeals has recognized that the trial court's limited closure of the courtroom...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Tucker
...compelling reasons.’ ”), quoting People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335, 1339 (N.Y.1979), aff'g162 A.D.2d 948, 557 N.Y.S.2d 179 (1990). “While the right to a public trial may certainly bow to interests in protecting witnesses from injury or intimidation in some ca......
-
People v. Clemons
...charges noted above. On appeal, however, the Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, reversed and ordered a new trial, 162 A.D.2d 948, 557 N.Y.S.2d 179. The majority concluded that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial had been violated, since, in its view, the trial ......
- Di Caprio v. Di Caprio
-
People v. Clemons
...v. Isaiah CLEMONS, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. November 18, 1992 Prior Report: 162 A.D.2d 948, 557 N.Y.S.2d 179. Gerald T. Barth by Vivian Aquilina, Syracuse, for appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick by Gordon Cuffy, Syracuse, for Judgment unani......
-
Chapter 3
...People v. Stover, 36 A.D.3d 837, 831 N.Y.S.2d 183 (2d Dep’t), lv. denied, 9 N.Y.3d 869, 840 N.Y.S.2d 899 (2007). 7 People v. Clemons, 162 A.D.2d 948, 557 N.Y.S.2d 179 (4th Dep’t 1990), aff’d, 78 N.Y.2d 571 N.Y.S.2d 433 (1991) (the court closed the courtroom in a rape case without first cond......