People v. Martin
895 N.Y.S.2d 874
N.Y. App. Div.
2010
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ROY MARTIN, Also Known as REALITY MARTIN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

895 N.Y.S.2d 874

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ROY MARTIN, Also Known as REALITY MARTIN, Appellant. [895 NYS2d 874]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered April 2, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, where there was limited seating in the courtroom caused by the presence of many potential jurors, the defendant‘s right to a public trial (see US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4) was not violated by the Supreme Court‘s exclusion of the defendant‘s father from a portion of the first day of voir dire (see , cert denied, ; ; ). The case of , cited by the defendant, does not require a different result. In Pressley, the trial court failed to consider seating alternatives that were apparent in the record, whereas here the record demonstrates that there were no immediate alternatives available to the Supreme Court. The defendant‘s claim that the Supreme Court excluded his father from voir dire beyond the morning session on the first day is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is based on matter dehors the record (see ).

Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the Supreme Court provided a meaningful response to a jury inquiry (see CPL 310.30; ; , cert denied, ; ). The jury, presumably satisfied with the response, did not request further explanation (see ; ; ). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.