People v. Askew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Askew

194 A.D.2d 341, 598 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5549

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

DecidedJune 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 341 (People v. Askew) 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. Askew, 194 A.D.2d 341, 598 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered October 4, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felony offender to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, standing on a street corner, directed the undercover officer to follow him for a purchase of cocaine. After a walk of 2 or 3 blocks, the officer was directed to wait while defendant got a glassine of cocaine from co-defendant. Defendant then handed the glassine to the officer in exchange for [342]*342the buy money. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility, under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley (69 NY2d 490, 494-495), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The jury was free to reject defendant’s testimony offered in support of his agency defense. The People disproved that defense beyond a reasonable doubt under the standards set forth in People v Roche (45 NY2d 78, cert denied 439 US 958), People v Argibay (45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930) and People v Lam Lek Chong (45 NY2d 64, cert denied 439 US 935). We find no error in the court’s ruling allowing introduction of evidence that defendant had been convicted of a prior drug sale. It is well settled that such evidence is admissible to rebut a claimed agency defense, and the court here furnished proper limiting instructions (People v Monahan, 114 AD2d 380).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved, or without merit. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered October 4, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felony offender to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, standing on a street corner, directed the undercover officer to follow him for a purchase of cocaine. After a walk of 2 or 3 blocks, the officer was directed to wait while defendant got a glassine of cocaine from co-defendant. Defendant then handed the glassine to the officer in exchange for [342]*342the buy money. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s findings of credibility, under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley (69 NY2d 490, 494-495), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The jury was free to reject defendant’s testimony offered in support of his agency defense. The People disproved that defense beyond a reasonable doubt under the standards set forth in People v Roche (45 NY2d 78, cert denied 439 US 958), People v Argibay (45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930) and People v Lam Lek Chong (45 NY2d 64, cert denied 439 US 935). We find no error in the court’s ruling allowing introduction of evidence that defendant had been convicted of a prior drug sale. It is well settled that such evidence is admissible to rebut a claimed agency defense, and the court here furnished proper limiting instructions (People v Monahan, 114 AD2d 380).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved, or without merit. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 341, 598 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-askew-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack