PEOPLE v. TORRES, 20 N.Y.3d 890 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals of New York
Number: innyco20121120411
Visitors: 1
Filed: Nov. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2012
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant adequately preserved the argument that the exclusion of his wife from the courtroom violated his right to a public trial ( see People v Alvarez, 20 N.Y.3d 75 , 81 [2012]; see also People v Caban, 14 N.Y.3d 369 , 373 [2010]). The closure of the courtroom during jury selection was not trivial ( see People v Martin, 16 N.Y.3d 607 , 613 [2011]). Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAF
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant adequately preserved the argument that the exclusion of his wife from the courtroom violated his right to a public trial ( see People v Alvarez, 20 N.Y.3d 75 , 81 [2012]; see also People v Caban, 14 N.Y.3d 369 , 373 [2010]). The closure of the courtroom during jury selection was not trivial ( see People v Martin, 16 N.Y.3d 607 , 613 [2011]). Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFF..
More
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant adequately preserved the argument that the exclusion of his wife from the courtroom violated his right to a public trial (see People v Alvarez, 20 N.Y.3d 75, 81 [2012]; see also People v Caban, 14 N.Y.3d 369, 373 [2010]). The closure of the courtroom during jury selection was not trivial (see People v Martin, 16 N.Y.3d 607, 613 [2011]).
Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and PIGOTT concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), orders affirmed in a memorandum.
Source: Leagle
