Opinion
November 15, 1991
Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in precluding him from testifying, in support of his justification defense, that he previously had been beaten by police officers. We disagree because defendant failed to make an offer of proof clearly and unambiguously to indicate that his prospective testimony would be relevant to a justification defense (see, People v. Cotto, 159 A.D.2d 385, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786; People v. Houghton, 155 A.D.2d 883; People v Billups, 132 A.D.2d 612, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 873; see also, Matter of Robert S., 52 N.Y.2d 1046; see, e.g., People v. Lyons, 115 A.D.2d 766).
Although defendant was acquitted of the charge of sexual abuse in the first degree, he argues that the court committed reversible error in closing the courtroom to the public, prior to complainant's testimony, without first conducting an inquiry regarding the propriety of that decision. The issue, however, has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Baez, 162 A.D.2d 602, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 852). We observe, however, that prior to ordering closure of the courtroom to the public, a trial court should make a careful inquiry to ascertain whether closure is warranted and should articulate the basis for its decision on the record (see, People v. Clemons, 78 N.Y.2d 48).
Furthermore, the court should have scrupulously followed the spirit of its Sandoval ruling and precluded the testimony of defendant's mother regarding defendant's alleged prior commission of criminal mischief, an uncharged crime (see, People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Powell, 152 A.D.2d 918). The error, however, was harmless in view of the other evidence (People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have examined defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.