151 A.D.3d 633
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- Defendant Keith King was convicted after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree; sentenced as a second felony drug offender to six years.
- Case arises from an undercover narcotics purchase in which an undercover officer asked defendant if he could "get" him drugs and defendant delivered the drugs.
- Defendant requested an agency jury charge (that he acted as an agent for the buyer) and moved under Batson to challenge the prosecutor's peremptory strikes; both requests were denied at trial.
- A Hinton hearing was held and the trial court ordered a limited courtroom closure while the undercover officer testified, based on safety/undercover concerns.
- Defendant appealed, challenging denial of the agency charge, the Batson ruling, and the courtroom closure; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an agency charge was required | People: evidence showed defendant sold drugs, not acting as buyer's agent | King: he acted solely on behalf of the buyer (agent), so jury should get agency instruction | Denied — no reasonable view of evidence supported sole agency; conduct fit seller role |
| Whether prosecutor's peremptory strikes violated Batson | People: strikes based on panelists' lack of engagement/demeanor (race-neutral) | King: strikes were pretextual and disparate treatment of similarly situated jurors | Denied — court credited prosecutor's race-neutral explanation; defendant's challenges unpreserved/meritless |
| Whether limited courtroom closure for undercover testimony was justified | People: undercover officer's safety and covert status would be jeopardized by open testimony | King: closure violated public trial rights under Waller | Affirmed — Hinton hearing showed particularized substantial probability of jeopardy; alternatives considered |
| Whether sentence was excessive | People: sentence appropriate under offender status | King: seek reduction | Affirmed — no basis to reduce sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Echevarria, 21 N.Y.3d 1 (N.Y. 2013) (agency instruction and courtroom closure standards discussed)
- People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64 (N.Y. 1978) (agency/"favor for a friend" context for drug transactions)
- People v Vaughan, 300 A.D.2d 104 (1st Dep't 2002) (agency defense requires evidence of representation to buyer)
- People v Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. 1990) (deference to trial court credibility findings on Batson issues)
- Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (standards for closing trials to the public)
- People v Gonzalez, 145 A.D.3d 586 (1st Dep't 2016) (undercover testimony may justify limited closure)
- Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. 43 (U.S. 2010) (court not always required to make explicit demeanor findings on Batson determinations)