People v. Bethea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bethea

289 A.D.2d 149, 734 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12372

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 149 (People v. Bethea) 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. Bethea, 289 A.D.2d 149, 734 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered August 3, 2000, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly refused to permit defendant to testify that he had told the police that the drugs contained in the subject glassine bags were imitations. Defendant argues that these statements were admissible, not for their truth, but as circumstantial evidence of his lack of knowledge that the envelopes contained real heroin. However, it is clear that he actually intended to use these statements to establish that he [150]*150had, in fact, believed that the glassine bags contained fake heroin, and hearsay testimony may not be employed to establish a person’s past belief (People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 819; People v Jacobs, 278 AD2d 21, 22, lv denied 96 NY2d 759). In any event, despite the court’s ruling, defendant actually testified as to the very matter that the court had precluded, and this testimony was not stricken. Accordingly, there was no prejudice to defendant’s right to present a defense. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered August 3, 2000, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly refused to permit defendant to testify that he had told the police that the drugs contained in the subject glassine bags were imitations. Defendant argues that these statements were admissible, not for their truth, but as circumstantial evidence of his lack of knowledge that the envelopes contained real heroin. However, it is clear that he actually intended to use these statements to establish that he [150]*150had, in fact, believed that the glassine bags contained fake heroin, and hearsay testimony may not be employed to establish a person’s past belief (People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 819; People v Jacobs, 278 AD2d 21, 22, lv denied 96 NY2d 759). In any event, despite the court’s ruling, defendant actually testified as to the very matter that the court had precluded, and this testimony was not stricken. Accordingly, there was no prejudice to defendant’s right to present a defense. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 149, 734 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bethea-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack