People v. Moore

• Decision Date: 15 December 2016
• Citation: 145 A.D.3d 552,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08447,44 N.Y.S.3d 27
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory MOORE, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

145 A.D.3d 552
44 N.Y.S.3d 27
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08447

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Gregory MOORE, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Dec. 15, 2016.

44 N.Y.S.3d 28

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Arielle Reid of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Diane N. Princ of counsel), for respondent.

ACOSTA, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.

145 A.D.3d 552

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered July 31, 2014, as amended September 16, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender

145 A.D.3d 553

previously convicted of a violent felony, to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Defendant's family members were improperly excluded from the closed courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer. It is undisputed that the evidence presented at a Hinton hearing did not demonstrate that the "exclusion of [defendant's family members was] necessary to protect the interest advanced by the People in support of closure" (People v. Nieves, 90 N.Y.2d 426, 430, 660 N.Y.S.2d 858, 683 N.E.2d 764 [1997] ; see also Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 [1984] ). The People ask us to interpret the record as indicating that the court did not, in fact, exclude defendant's relatives. While the record arguably presents a degree of ambiguity in this regard, in that both the prosecutor, in the course of his argument about the officer's efforts to conceal his identity, and the court, in discussing its decision, mentioned "the general...