People v. Birch

69 A.D.3d 425, 893 N.Y.2d 30
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 7, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 425 (People v. Birch) 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. Birch, 69 A.D.3d 425, 893 N.Y.2d 30 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence provided a satisfactory explanation for the fact that two officers made different observations, and defendant’s arguments to the contrary are without merit.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that, earlier in the evening of the charged sale, the observing officer saw defendant make what appeared to be a drug sale to an unapprehended buyer. This evidence completed the narrative and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect (see e.g. People v Urena, 306 AD2d 137 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 625 [2003]). While the court should have provided a limiting instruction regarding the uncharged crime, we find, to the extent the claim is preserved, that any error is harmless.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Rasako
78 A.D.3d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 A.D.3d 425, 893 N.Y.2d 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-birch-nyappdiv-2010.