People v. Agard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Agard

268 A.D.2d 438, 701 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 161

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 10, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), rendered April 22, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the fight most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since identification was not an issue in this case, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced by a detective’s accidental testimony that another detective identified the defendant as the individual who accepted the package containing contraband (see, People v Williams, 148 AD2d 480).

The prosecutor’s summation remarks were a fair response to the defendant’s arguments (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.), rendered April 22, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the fight most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since identification was not an issue in this case, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced by a detective’s accidental testimony that another detective identified the defendant as the individual who accepted the package containing contraband (see, People v Williams, 148 AD2d 480).

The prosecutor’s summation remarks were a fair response to the defendant’s arguments (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Agard, 268 A.D.2d 438, 701 N.Y.S.2d 620, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

268 A.D.2d 438 (People v. Agard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related