People v. Ali

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ali

301 A.D.2d 609, 753 N.Y.S.2d 851

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Ali) 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. Ali, 301 A.D.2d 609, 753 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered January 31, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492) was coercive is not preserved for appellate review since he did not raise a specific objection on that ground (see People v Ramkisson, 245 AD2d 393; People v McRae, 266 AD2d 241). In any event, the charge as a whole was not coercive (see People v Ford, 78 NY2d 878, 880; People v Kinard, 215 AD2d 591).

The defendant also failed to preserve his claim that the trial court erroneously charged the jury that the techniques used by the police to collect evidence were not their “concern” (see People v Hernandez, 172 AD2d 560). In any event, while that instruction may not have been appropriate, the charge, when read as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jurors that it was their duty to reach a verdict based on the sufficiency of the ev[610]*610idence or the lack of evidence and that the police were not required to investigate or prove the People’s case in any particular way (see People v Marchese, 224 AD2d 341, 342).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, 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, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered January 31, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492) was coercive is not preserved for appellate review since he did not raise a specific objection on that ground (see People v Ramkisson, 245 AD2d 393; People v McRae, 266 AD2d 241). In any event, the charge as a whole was not coercive (see People v Ford, 78 NY2d 878, 880; People v Kinard, 215 AD2d 591).

The defendant also failed to preserve his claim that the trial court erroneously charged the jury that the techniques used by the police to collect evidence were not their “concern” (see People v Hernandez, 172 AD2d 560). In any event, while that instruction may not have been appropriate, the charge, when read as a whole, adequately conveyed to the jurors that it was their duty to reach a verdict based on the sufficiency of the ev[610]*610idence or the lack of evidence and that the police were not required to investigate or prove the People’s case in any particular way (see People v Marchese, 224 AD2d 341, 342).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 609, 753 N.Y.S.2d 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ali-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack