From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 1993
197 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

October 12, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.).


The trial court did not abuse its discretion by closing the courtroom to the public during the testimony of the undercover officer (People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). The officer testified that he continued to work in the area where the transaction involving defendant took place (People v Santos, 154 A.D.2d 284, 285, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 817), and the court, itself, noted that its active trial calendar included drug cases. Defendant's argument that a remark by the prosecutor in summation shifted the burden of proof and suggested that defendant had an obligation to testify is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to do so, we would find it to be without merit.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Shoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 12, 1993
197 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Shoy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. VERNON SHOY, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 12, 1993

Citations

197 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
602 N.Y.S.2d 371