Summary
stating that to preserve a question as to whether a specific individual may stay in the courtroom the issue should be raised at the Hinton hearing
Summary of this case from Garcia v. LewisOpinion
June 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen Lloyd Barrett, J.).
Summary denial of the Dunaway/Wade branch of defendant's suppression motion was proper since the undercover police officer's confirmatory identification in this "buy-and-bust" operation preceded defendant's arrest, and hence was not suppressible as the fruit of an illegal arrest (CPL 710.60 [b]; People v. Rivera, 168 A.D.2d 305, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 910; see also, People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 422).
In addition, since the undercover police officer testified at the Hinton hearing that he was still active in that capacity in the specific area where defendant was arrested, the courtroom was properly closed during his testimony ( People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443). The issue whether defendant's wife should have been exempted from the closure order has not been preserved as it was not raised until after the Hinton hearing ( see, People v Bouche, 208 A.D.2d 445, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1009).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rubin, Asch and Williams, JJ.