TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Crider

The People of the State of New York v. Albert Crider

People v. Crider, 236 A.D.2d 482 (1997)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 10, 1997
Citations
236 A.D.2d 482654 N.Y.S.2d 291997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1179

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered February 15, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 , cert denied 410 US 911 ) supported the trial court’s decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover of *483 ficer. That officer’s supervisor testified that the officer and his team were involved in a long-term narcotics operation targeting members of a group or organization who had committed homicides. The supervisor stated that he believed that this group was responsible for homicides in the area of the defendant’s arrest. The undercover officer would, in the near future, be sent into the area of the defendant’s arrest for further undercover investigation. Such testimony meets the requirements for courtroom closure under People v Martinez ( 82 NY2d 436 ; (see, e.g., People v Mitchell, 209 AD2d 444 ; People v Hosien, 204 AD2d 658 ; People v Nieves, 232 AD2d 305 ).

The bulk of the defendant’s claims under Batson v Kentucky ( 476 US 79 ) are not préserved for appellate review (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 111 ). In any event, the trial court properly concluded that the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges was not pretextual (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1997: 22001: 119972026peak 1997 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Crider v. Eisenschmidt153 F. Supp. 2d 214 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)
  2. Ayala v. Speckard131 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997) · Dissent
  3. Steven Ayala v. Hubert Speckard, Superintendent of Groveland Correctional Facility, Charles Okonkwo v131 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997)

Most recent

  1. Crider v. Eisenschmidt153 F. Supp. 2d 214 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)
  2. Steven Ayala v. Hubert Speckard, Superintendent of Groveland Correctional Facility, Charles Okonkwo v131 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997)
  3. Ayala v. Speckard131 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

DepthCaseCited by
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) 13,828
People v. Hinton, 286 N.E.2d 265 (N.Y. 1972) 296
People v. Allen, 653 N.E.2d 1173 (N.Y. 1995) 270
People v. Martinez, 624 N.E.2d 1027 (N.Y. 1993) 220
People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84 (1995) 95
People v. Mitchell, 209 A.D.2d 444 (1994) 13
People v. Hosien, 204 A.D.2d 658 (1994) 10
People v. Nieves, 232 A.D.2d 305 (1996) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list