People v. Courtney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Courtney

182 A.D.2d 507, 583 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6106

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

DecidedApril 16, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 507 (People v. Courtney) 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. Courtney, 182 A.D.2d 507, 583 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.), rendered March 7, 1991 [508]*508convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of the sale of crack cocaine to undercover police officers. Balancing the probative value of evidence of defendant’s prior arson conviction against the potential for undue prejudice the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its Sandoval ruling, allowing an inquiry into the underlying facts thereof (see, People v Mayrant, 43 NY2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371).

Defendant’s objection to the court’s instruction on intent is unpreserved. However, were we to review in the interest of justice we would conclude that the charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate principles of law (People v Ortiz, 176 AD2d 681, Iv denied 79 NY2d 830) and further that the specific instruction was appropriate (see, People v Getch, 50 NY2d 456, 465). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the imposition of sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.), rendered March 7, 1991 [508]*508convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of the sale of crack cocaine to undercover police officers. Balancing the probative value of evidence of defendant’s prior arson conviction against the potential for undue prejudice the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its Sandoval ruling, allowing an inquiry into the underlying facts thereof (see, People v Mayrant, 43 NY2d 236; People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371).

Defendant’s objection to the court’s instruction on intent is unpreserved. However, were we to review in the interest of justice we would conclude that the charge as a whole conveyed the appropriate principles of law (People v Ortiz, 176 AD2d 681, Iv denied 79 NY2d 830) and further that the specific instruction was appropriate (see, People v Getch, 50 NY2d 456, 465). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the imposition of sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 507, 583 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-courtney-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack