People v. Adkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Adkins

54 A.D.2d 913, 387 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14756

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 913 (People v. Adkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Adkins, 54 A.D.2d 913, 387 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered June 18, 1975, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant was convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. One of the issues raised on appeal is the repetitious cross-examination of the defendant at the trial concerning his use of drugs. We disapprove of the manner and extent of the cross-examination, which, in the context of the case, bordered on being excessive. However, in the light of the total evidence before the jury, we cannot say that the error rose to the proportions which require a reversal (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). We have examined the other points raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, rendered June 18, 1975, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant was convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. One of the issues raised on appeal is the repetitious cross-examination of the defendant at the trial concerning his use of drugs. We disapprove of the manner and extent of the cross-examination, which, in the context of the case, bordered on being excessive. However, in the light of the total evidence before the jury, we cannot say that the error rose to the proportions which require a reversal (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242). We have examined the other points raised by the defendant and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 913, 387 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-adkins-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack