People v. Brooks

26 A.D.3d 867, 810 N.Y.S.2d 615
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 867 (People v. Brooks) 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. Brooks, 26 A.D.3d 867, 810 N.Y.S.2d 615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered February 21, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Even assuming, arguendo, that Supreme Court erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of two police officers in evidence because that testimony improperly bolstered the undercover officer’s identification of defendant, we conclude that the error is harmless (see generally People v Giles, 239 AD2d 936, 937 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 905 [1997]). The evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the error (see People v Ford, 262 AD2d 1052 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1044 [1999]; People v Jenkins, 175 AD2d 648, 649 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 1012 [1991]; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in refusing to give an expanded identification charge. Upon our review of the court’s charge, we conclude that it reasonably mirrored the expanded identification charge requested by defendant and “sufficiently apprised the jury that the reasonable doubt standard applied to identification” (People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873, 874 [1995]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

MUSCARELLA, SAMUEL, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
People v. Muscarella
132 A.D.3d 1288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
STUBBS, JASON MARCELLUS, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Stubbs
96 A.D.3d 1448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 867, 810 N.Y.S.2d 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brooks-nyappdiv-2006.