People v. Bristow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bristow

106 A.D.2d 510, 483 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21546

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 510 (People v. Bristow) 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. Bristow, 106 A.D.2d 510, 483 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered May 9, 1983, convicting him of six counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt inasmuch as the evidence established that defendant did not act solely as an agent of the buyer (see People v McLeod, 45 NY2d 95; People v Tucker, 96 AD2d 893; People v Gory, 30 AD2d 975). We also note that the trial court properly permitted the People to use defendant’s uncharged drug sales on cross-examination of defendant and on rebuttal, inasmuch as such use was within the scope of defendant’s direct testimony and was offered solely to prove defendant’s intent to sell the drugs (see People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, cert den 460 US 1047; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Jackson, 39 NY2d 64). Defendant’s remaining contention that there was an error of law in the trial court’s agency charge is unpreserved for review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered May 9, 1983, convicting him of six counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt inasmuch as the evidence established that defendant did not act solely as an agent of the buyer (see People v McLeod, 45 NY2d 95; People v Tucker, 96 AD2d 893; People v Gory, 30 AD2d 975). We also note that the trial court properly permitted the People to use defendant’s uncharged drug sales on cross-examination of defendant and on rebuttal, inasmuch as such use was within the scope of defendant’s direct testimony and was offered solely to prove defendant’s intent to sell the drugs (see People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, cert den 460 US 1047; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350; People v Jackson, 39 NY2d 64). Defendant’s remaining contention that there was an error of law in the trial court’s agency charge is unpreserved for review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 510, 483 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bristow-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack