PEOPLE v. JOHNSON, 88 A.D.3d 503 (2011)
Court: Supreme Court of New York
Number: innyco20111013293
Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 13, 2011
Latest Update: Oct. 13, 2011
Summary: The People made a sufficiently particularized showing of an overriding interest justifying closure of the courtroom during the undercover officers' testimony, which included evidence that the officers expected to return to the vicinity of defendant's arrest for further undercover operations, that unapprehended subjects of investigations remained at large, that the officers had been threatened in other undercover investigations, and that the officers took precautions to conceal their identity ( s
Summary: The People made a sufficiently particularized showing of an overriding interest justifying closure of the courtroom during the undercover officers' testimony, which included evidence that the officers expected to return to the vicinity of defendant's arrest for further undercover operations, that unapprehended subjects of investigations remained at large, that the officers had been threatened in other undercover investigations, and that the officers took precautions to conceal their identity ( se..
More
The People made a sufficiently particularized showing of an overriding interest justifying closure of the courtroom during the undercover officers' testimony, which included evidence that the officers expected to return to the vicinity of defendant's arrest for further undercover operations, that unapprehended subjects of investigations remained at large, that the officers had been threatened in other undercover investigations, and that the officers took precautions to conceal their identity (see e.g. People v Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490 [1997], cert denied sub nom. Ayala v New York, 522 U.S. 1002 [1997]). Instead of ordering a complete closure of the courtroom during the testimony of these officers, the court permitted defendant's family to attend. Since defendant only challenged the sufficiency of the People's showing, he did not preserve his remaining arguments concerning the court's closure ruling (see e.g. People v Manning, 78 A.D.3d 585, 585-586 [2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 861 [2011]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits (see id.; see also People v Mickens, 82 A.D.3d 430 [2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 798 [2011]).
Defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation and the court's charge do not warrant reversal.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Source: Leagle
