People v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burgos

192 A.D.2d 472, 596 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4348

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

DecidedApril 27, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 472 (People v. Burgos) 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. Burgos, 192 A.D.2d 472, 596 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., at suppression hearing; Daniel FitzGerald, J., at trial), convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a [473]*473controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

Arrested in a "buy and bust” operation for selling heroin to an undercover officer in exchange for $20 in prerecorded "buy money”, the police recovered from defendant additional glassines of heroin bearing the same logo as those he sold to the undercover officer, the buy money, and another $431. There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the introduction of this $431 served to inflame the jury and divert its attention by portraying him as a large-scale drug dealer. Defendant’s possession of a substantial amount of cash was probative of his possession of drugs with intent to sell (People v Tavares, 174 AD2d 493, 494), and the trial court, noting the difficulty of establishing such intent, properly weighed the probative value of the evidence against its potential for prejudice. Nor do we find that the court abused its discretion in sentencing. Concur —Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., at suppression hearing; Daniel FitzGerald, J., at trial), convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a [473]*473controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

Arrested in a "buy and bust” operation for selling heroin to an undercover officer in exchange for $20 in prerecorded "buy money”, the police recovered from defendant additional glassines of heroin bearing the same logo as those he sold to the undercover officer, the buy money, and another $431. There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the introduction of this $431 served to inflame the jury and divert its attention by portraying him as a large-scale drug dealer. Defendant’s possession of a substantial amount of cash was probative of his possession of drugs with intent to sell (People v Tavares, 174 AD2d 493, 494), and the trial court, noting the difficulty of establishing such intent, properly weighed the probative value of the evidence against its potential for prejudice. Nor do we find that the court abused its discretion in sentencing. Concur —Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 472, 596 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burgos-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack