From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1992
180 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in replacing a juror who was unavailable (see, People v. Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69; People v John, 163 A.D.2d 534; People v. McDonald, 143 A.D.2d 1050, 1051). The record establishes that on the morning the court was to deliver its charge, the juror called the court and informed the Judge that he had a problem in his apartment and could not be present that day. The Judge inquired as to whether the juror would be available the following day and as to the exact nature of the problem, and directed the juror to come to court to discuss it. The juror responded that he would never return and refused to elaborate on the nature of his problems. In light of the foregoing, it cannot be said that the court did not make a reasonable inquiry into why the juror was absent and when the juror would return (see, e.g., People v. Page, supra, at 72, 74; People v. Lee, 155 A.D.2d 483). Under the circumstances, we find that the substitution of the alternate juror in no way violated the defendant's right to a jury trial (see, People v. Lee, supra).

We further find that the court did not deprive the defendant of his right to a public trial when it closed the courtroom during the undercover police officer's testimony. The court first conducted a hearing at which it was disclosed that the undercover police officer was still engaged in undercover investigations in Kings County and that closure was necessary to protect his safety and the integrity of the ongoing operations (see, People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 409, cert denied 444 U.S. 946; People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911; People v. Glaude, 176 A.D.2d 346; People v. Carvey, 161 A.D.2d 656; People v. Planes, 158 A.D.2d 481, 482).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1992
180 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TONY HILL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 10, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 711

Citing Cases

People v. Weems

Moreover, the undercover officer's identification was not questioned at trial, inasmuch as defendant,…

People v. Blakley

The court did not deprive the defendant of her right to a public trial when it closed the courtroom during…