People v. Bastardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bastardo

203 A.D.2d 183, 611 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240

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

DecidedApril 26, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 183 (People v. Bastardo) 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. Bastardo, 203 A.D.2d 183, 611 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered March 12, 1991, 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 seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 Vi to 9 years and one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the response to a note from the jury is without merit. Since the court read the note from the jury aloud in defense counsel’s presence and prior to the jury’s return to the courtroom to hear the court’s response, defense counsel had an opportunity to offer input concerning a proper response to the jury note. Accordingly, the trial court did not violate defendant’s right to counsel. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered March 12, 1991, 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 seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 Vi to 9 years and one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the response to a note from the jury is without merit. Since the court read the note from the jury aloud in defense counsel’s presence and prior to the jury’s return to the courtroom to hear the court’s response, defense counsel had an opportunity to offer input concerning a proper response to the jury note. Accordingly, the trial court did not violate defendant’s right to counsel. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 183, 611 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bastardo-nyappdiv-1994.