People v. Rodriguez

• Citation: 685 N.Y.S.2d 252,258 A.D.2d 483
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 849 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose RODRIGUEZ, appellant.
• Decision Date: 01 February 1999
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 252

685 N.Y.S.2d 252

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 849

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose RODRIGUEZ, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 1, 1999.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent.

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered January 12, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to a public trial because his family was, in essence, precluded from attending the trial as a result of the trial court's decision to use a screen to block their view of the testimony of the undercover officer. The court properly exercised its discretion when it closed the courtroom during the trial testimony of the undercover police officer. The officer testified that he would be returning to the area where the arrest took place--an area where he had been threatened--and that if his identity was revealed that information could be disseminated in that area, resulting in his safety being jeopardized. The officer also testified that he had lost subjects and that he had never testified in open court before (see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492, cert. denied sub nom. --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413; People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310, 655 N.Y.S.2d 376).

Moreover, the court ordered an alternative to closure with regard to the defendant's family, allowing them to remain in the courtroom during the officer's testimony provided that a screen was placed so as to block their view of the undercover officer (see, People v. Rivera, 237 A.D.2d 178, 654 N.Y.S.2d 771). Accordingly, the defendant was not deprived of his right to a public trial.

The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675)...