People v. Borges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Borges

253 A.D.2d 707, 677 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9803

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 707 (People v. Borges) 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. Borges, 253 A.D.2d 707, 677 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme [708]*708Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his various claims of error regarding the admission of evidence of uncharged contemporaneous drug sales and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (People v Roldan, 238 AD2d 255, lv denied 90 NY2d 863). Were we to review them, we would find no error since the evidence in question was highly probative of the charge of possession with intent to sell, and was admissible to prove the contested issue of identity, to complete the narrative, and to explain why the police targeted defendant (see, People v Ramos, 220 AD2d 330, lv denied 87 NY2d 976). Contrary to defendant’s current position, “the prosecution is not bound to rest after presenting the minimum of evidence supporting its prima facie case” (People v Marrero, 191 AD2d 289, lv denied 81 NY2d 973). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme [708]*708Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his various claims of error regarding the admission of evidence of uncharged contemporaneous drug sales and we decline to review them in the interest of justice (People v Roldan, 238 AD2d 255, lv denied 90 NY2d 863). Were we to review them, we would find no error since the evidence in question was highly probative of the charge of possession with intent to sell, and was admissible to prove the contested issue of identity, to complete the narrative, and to explain why the police targeted defendant (see, People v Ramos, 220 AD2d 330, lv denied 87 NY2d 976). Contrary to defendant’s current position, “the prosecution is not bound to rest after presenting the minimum of evidence supporting its prima facie case” (People v Marrero, 191 AD2d 289, lv denied 81 NY2d 973). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 707, 677 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-borges-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack