Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Smith

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


December 2, 2008

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
v.
BLAIR SMITH, APPELLANT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.), rendered April 18, 2007, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

HOWARD MILLER, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL & ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.

(Ind. No. 981/06)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court's closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers denied him the right to a public trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 491; People v Hodge, 53 AD3d 507; People v Thomas, 52 AD3d 626; People v Jemmott, 11 AD3d 638; People v Martinez, 248 AD2d 730).

The defendant also contends that the Supreme Court's response to the jury's request for a readback of certain testimony denied him a fair trial. Since the defendant did not object to the court's response, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652). In any event, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in seeking clarification of the jury's request for a readback of the three police officers' testimony (see People v Cottrel, 275 AD2d 644; People v Ortiz, 265 AD2d 431). Moreover, the court did not pressure the jury to abandon its initial request to hear the testimony of the three police officers. The court advised the jury that "[it would] have no problem of [sic] doing it" and "[it was] happy to do it," indicating a willingness to abide by the wishes of the jury (see People v Santiago, 231 AD2d 652; People v Elie, 150 AD2d 719).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

MILLER, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and BELEN, JJ., concur.

20081202

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.