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. Plummer

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 1, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
KEITH PLUMMER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Stolz, J.), rendered February 26, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

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.

Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman, Roman, JJ.

4078/07

The People made a sufficiently particularized showing of an overriding interest justifying the court's closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers (see People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 498-500 [1997], cert denied sub nom. Ayala v New York, 522 US 1002 [1997]). Each officer established that he expected to resume undercover operations in the specific area of defendant's arrest in the very near future. The officers also had pending cases and took precautions to avoid being recognized. Accordingly, there was a substantial probability that each officer's safety and effectiveness would be jeopardized by his testimony in open court (see People v Jones, 96 NY2d 213, 220 [2001]).

The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). The court precluded elicitation of the underlying facts of defendant's convictions, and it only permitted the People to identify a few of these convictions. We conclude that the number of convictions permitted was not excessive in light of defendant's extensive record and the court's steps to limit prejudice.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20091201

© 1992-2009 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.