People v. Allende

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Allende

176 A.D.2d 473, 574 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 473 (People v. Allende) 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. Allende, 176 A.D.2d 473, 574 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Marks, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 23, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of 4 Vi to 9 years and 6 months, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was convicted following a "buy and bust” operation, claims that three photographs of the scene of the alleged crime probably were not forwarded to the jury because they were not included in the court reporter’s "Index to Exhibits”. He also asserts that certain comments made by the trial court served to bolster the People’s evidence.

No objection to these matters was raised below, leaving them unpreserved for our review. (CPL 470.05 [2].) In any event, there was no showing that the jury failed to receive all the photo exhibits. In any event, any such failure was not caused by any error of the court. Judicial proceedings enjoy a presumption of regularity. (See, People ex rel. Bartlam v Murphy, 13 NY2d 1068, 1069.) The intervening comments of the court cited by defendant were intended to clarify testimony to assist the jury. (See, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44.)

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Marks, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 23, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of 4 Vi to 9 years and 6 months, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was convicted following a "buy and bust” operation, claims that three photographs of the scene of the alleged crime probably were not forwarded to the jury because they were not included in the court reporter’s "Index to Exhibits”. He also asserts that certain comments made by the trial court served to bolster the People’s evidence.

No objection to these matters was raised below, leaving them unpreserved for our review. (CPL 470.05 [2].) In any event, there was no showing that the jury failed to receive all the photo exhibits. In any event, any such failure was not caused by any error of the court. Judicial proceedings enjoy a presumption of regularity. (See, People ex rel. Bartlam v Murphy, 13 NY2d 1068, 1069.) The intervening comments of the court cited by defendant were intended to clarify testimony to assist the jury. (See, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44.)

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 473, 574 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allende-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack