People v. Aventura

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aventura

181 A.D.2d 452, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3116

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 452 (People v. Aventura) 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. Aventura, 181 A.D.2d 452, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice K. Shea, J.), rendered June 22, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of AVi to 9 years on the sale and possession counts and a concurrent term of imprisonment of 6 months on the drug paraphernalia count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s arguments that he was prejudiced by the introduction of background testimony and the court’s identification charge are unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Leisner, 73 NY2d 140, 147). Were we to reach them in the interest of justice, we would find that the background information did not impermissibly suggest a propensity on defendant’s part to commit the crimes charged or show that he had committed other crimes. The court’s extensive identification charge fairly instructed the jury on the identification question raised at the trial. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Asch 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 (Felice K. Shea, J.), rendered June 22, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of AVi to 9 years on the sale and possession counts and a concurrent term of imprisonment of 6 months on the drug paraphernalia count, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s arguments that he was prejudiced by the introduction of background testimony and the court’s identification charge are unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Leisner, 73 NY2d 140, 147). Were we to reach them in the interest of justice, we would find that the background information did not impermissibly suggest a propensity on defendant’s part to commit the crimes charged or show that he had committed other crimes. The court’s extensive identification charge fairly instructed the jury on the identification question raised at the trial. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 452, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aventura-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack