People v. Andrades

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andrades

215 A.D.2d 304, 627 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5803

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

DecidedMay 25, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 304 (People v. Andrades) 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. Andrades, 215 A.D.2d 304, 627 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.), ren[305]*305dered February 27, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since "specific intent” is not an element of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the People were required to prove that defendant "knowingly” offered to sell the narcotics to the undercover officer (People v Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140, 144-145).

Nor did the court err when it granted the People’s application to close the courtroom after a Hinton hearing (People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), where the undercover officer had numerous cases pending from purchases which he made in the area after the instant crime; he had received several "serious” threats to his life; and he was still an active undercover in the same area. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Sheridan, J.), ren[305]*305dered February 27, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Since "specific intent” is not an element of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the People were required to prove that defendant "knowingly” offered to sell the narcotics to the undercover officer (People v Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140, 144-145).

Nor did the court err when it granted the People’s application to close the courtroom after a Hinton hearing (People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), where the undercover officer had numerous cases pending from purchases which he made in the area after the instant crime; he had received several "serious” threats to his life; and he was still an active undercover in the same area. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 304, 627 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andrades-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack