People v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 21 September 1992 |
| Citation | 186 A.D.2d 231,587 N.Y.S.2d 770 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Kareem PETERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Robert S. Dean, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall, and William M. Harrington, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, BALLETTA and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered October 3, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his right to a public trial when the courtroom door was inadvertently locked during his testimony. The defendant's trial was open to the public until the People called their last witness, an undercover officer who was involved in the so-called "buy and bust" operation which led to the defendant's arrest. The prosecutor requested that the courtroom be closed to protect the officer's identity. Following an inquiry which established that the officer was still engaged in undercover work, the court granted the application, and the courtroom was cleared of spectators. After the undercover officer testified, the People rested their case, and the defendant took the stand. No other evidence was presented on the defendant's behalf. Just before the defense counsel began his summation, someone knocked on the courtroom door. Only then did the court and the parties become aware that the courtroom had not been reopened after the undercover officer's testimony.
The defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that the defendant had been denied his right to a public trial. The court denied the motion, finding that the closure of the courtroom during the defendant's testimony was inadvertent and that the defendant's trial had been open to the public. The court noted that the motion for a mistrial was not addressed to the decision to close the courtroom for the undercover officer's testimony and that its directive had been to close the courtroom for that purpose only. The defendant did not dispute the court's observation that the only persons present when the courtroom was initially closed were spectators, rather than members of his family, and that it was one of those spectators who later knocked at the door. The court also noted that the defendant's testimony had been brief, about 15 to 20 minutes, and that the courtroom had been immediately reopened upon discovering the mistake.
Contrary to the People's contention, we conclude that the issue of whether the defendant was deprived of his right to a public trial is preserved for appellate review. Although the right to a public trial can be waived by failing to object (see, e.g., People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54, 177 N.E. 306; People v. Rivera, 162 A.D.2d 728, 557 N.Y.S.2d 126; People v. Marathon, 97 A.D.2d 650, 469 N.Y.S.2d 178), here the defendant objected and moved for a mistrial as soon as the unauthorized closure of the courtroom was discovered. We find, however, that under the circumstances presented here, the closure of the courtroom during the defendant's testimony does not require reversal of his conviction.
Before a criminal trial is closed to the public, the court must conduct an inquiry "careful enough to assure the court that the defendant's right to a public trial is not being sacrificed for less than compelling reasons" (People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, 414-415, 418 N.Y.S.2d 359, 391 N.E.2d 1335, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 307, 62 L.Ed.2d 315; see also, People v. Clemons, 78 N.Y.2d 48, 51-52, 571 N.Y.S.2d 433, 574 N.E.2d 1039). No inquiry was conducted to determine whether compelling reasons existed for the closure of the courtroom during the defendant's testimony. The issue here, however, does not concern the propriety of a closure order, as it is clear that the court did not explicitly exclude members of the public during the defendant's testimony (see, e.g., People v. Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rayford
...trial" ( People v. Almonte, 23 A.D.3d 392, 394, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95; see People v. Kadry, 30 A.D.3d 440, 817 N.Y.S.2d 97; People v. Peterson, 186 A.D.2d 231, 232-233, 587 N.Y.S.2d 770; cf. People v. Brown, 30 A.D.3d 609, 610, 817 N.Y.S.2d 139). Moreover, any prejudice that may have resulted the......
-
People v. Luciano
... ... Defendant's defense was that he was at his grandmother's house at the time Arroyo made the buy of cocaine in New York City. The remarks were fair comment in response to the evidence and defense counsel's summation (see, People v. Peterson, 186 A.D.2d 231, 232, 587 ... N.Y.S.2d 770, affd 81 N.Y.2d 824, 595 N.Y.S.2d 383, 611 N.E.2d 284; People v. Lee, 167 A.D.2d 354, 355, 561 N.Y.S.2d 310, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 879, 568 N.Y.S.2d 922, 571 N.E.2d 92). Additionally, the remarks were preceded by an explanation that defendant has no ... ...
-
People v. Miller
...281; People v. Molinaro, 62 A.D.3d 724, 725, 880 N.Y.S.2d 91; People v. Hill, 286 A.D.2d 777, 778, 730 N.Y.S.2d 723;People v. Peterson, 186 A.D.2d 231, 232, 587 N.Y.S.2d 770, affd. 81 N.Y.2d 824, 595 N.Y.S.2d 383, 611 N.E.2d 284; People v. Rawlings, 144 A.D.2d 500, 533 N.Y.S.2d 1001). The d......
-
People v. Muhammad
... ... overcome" (People v Colon, 71 N.Y.2d 410, 415 ... [1988]). In sum, "an affirmative act by the trial court ... excluding persons from the courtroom" without lawful ... justification constitutes a violation of the defendant's ... right to a public trial (People v Peterson, 81 ... N.Y.2d 824, 825 [1993]). And in such case, reversal of the ... defendant's conviction is mandated because it "is ... the only realistic means to implement this important ... constitutional guarantee" (see Martin, 16 ... N.Y.3d at 613; see also People v Jones, 47 N.Y.2d ... 409, 417 ... ...