| People v Mazarigos |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06322 [76 AD3d 533] |
| August 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v OscarMazarigos, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.),rendered February 25, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court,Suffolk County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).
The trial court properly declined the defendant's request to charge the jury with theaffirmative defense of entrapment since no reasonable view of the evidence supported thatdefense (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750[1988]; People v Garcia, 66 AD3d699 [2009]; People v Skervin,17 AD3d 771, 771-772 [2005]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidencedemonstrated that undercover detectives merely afforded the defendant the opportunity tocommit the subject offense, which, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant an entrapmentcharge (see People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869, 871-872 [1993]; People v Vega, 23 AD3d 504, 505[2005]; People v Moultrie, 5 AD3d241, 242 [2004]; People v Delaney, 309 AD2d 968 [2003]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in closing the courtroom to all but the defendant's family during the testimony of adetective. The detective testified at a Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]) that she recently had workedundercover on several cases with the other undercover officer testifying at trial, that they hadidentified a suspect who had not yet been arrested, and that her safety and the safety of that otherofficer, as well as the open case on which they jointly had worked, would be jeopardized if heridentity was revealed (see People vHodge, 53 AD3d 507 [2008]; People v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2007]; People v Mendez, 5 AD3d 400,401 [2004]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Austin andRoman, JJ., concur.