People v. Cuevas
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Gross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People v. James (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. Tolentino (N.Y. 1997)
- People v. Tolentino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Herrera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- People v. Cordero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Santos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Romain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Neu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- People v. Williams (New York Supreme Court 1986)
- People v. Stanton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People v. Morin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People v. Warren O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- People v. Dawson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
The court may upon application by the prosecutor exclude the public from a portion of the trial during the testimony of an undercover agent in order to protect the integrity of pending investigations, as well as the witness’ future usefulness, or to insure his safety from possible reprisals. The principles and procedures applicable to such a motion have been discussed at length in our prior decisions (see, e.g., People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71; People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409).
Here the District Attorney sought to have the courtroom closed solely on his representation that the witness was an undercover officer. Although the court questioned the prosecutor prior to granting the motion, it erred by failing to make an adequate inquiry of the witness, as well as the factual findings prescribed in People v Jones (supra).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.