| People v Plummer |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08879 [68 AD3d 416] |
| December 1, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KeithPlummer, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Melissa Pennington of counsel), forrespondent.
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 thirddegree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees andsentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of six years, unanimouslyaffirmed.
The People made a sufficiently particularized showing of an overriding interest justifying thecourt's closure of the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers (see Peoplev Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 498-500 [1997], cert denied sub nom. Ayala v NewYork, 522 US 1002 [1997]). Each officer established that he expected to resume undercoveroperations in the specific area of defendant's arrest in the very near future. The officers also hadpending cases and took precautions to avoid being recognized. Accordingly, there was asubstantial probability that each officer's safety and effectiveness would be jeopardized by histestimony in open court (see People v Jones, 96 NY2d 213, 220 [2001]).
The court's Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a properexercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People vWalker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). The court precluded elicitation of the underlyingfacts of defendant's convictions, and it only permitted the People to identify a few of theseconvictions. We conclude that the number of [*2]convictionspermitted was not excessive in light of defendant's extensive record and the court's steps to limitprejudice. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Roman, JJ.