The People v. William Campbell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------No. 14
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
William Campbell,
Appellant.
Katharine M. Atlas, for appellant.
Ellen Stanfield Friedman, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant William Campbell was arrested on July 30,
2007 and charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in
the third degree (Penal Law ยง 220.39 [1]) after having allegedly
approached an undercover police officer to initiate a drug
- 1 -
- 2 transaction.
No. 14
The parties stipulated that the courtroom should be
closed to the general public during the undercover's testimony.
The prosecutor, however, also sought to exclude defendant's
family members planning to attend the trial.
Following a Hinton
hearing (People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US
911, 93 S Ct 970, 35 L Ed 2d 273 [1973]), the trial judge ruled
that defendant's grandmother, with whom he resided and who had
apparently reared him, and an aunt could remain in the courtroom
when the undercover testified; he excluded another aunt and one
of her sons on the ground that they resided near enough to the
area where the undercover officer conducted ongoing drug
investigations to present a risk of exposure, compromising his
effectiveness and safety.
We conclude that the record made at
the Hinton hearing was adequate to support the trial judge's
exercise of discretion to exclude the aunt and her son (People v
Nieves, 90 NY2d 426 [1997]).
Defendant's remaining contentions likewise lack merit.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided February 15, 2011
- 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
