People v. Cowan

77 A.D.3d 850, 909 N.Y.S.2d 367, 76 A.D.2d 1111, 908 N.Y.S.2d 244

This text of 77 A.D.3d 850 (People v. Cowan) 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. Cowan, 77 A.D.3d 850, 909 N.Y.S.2d 367, 76 A.D.2d 1111, 908 N.Y.S.2d 244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered July 10, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As it is undisputed that a recording of the subject drug transaction was audible and intelligible, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the jury, with the proper limiting instruction, to utilize a transcript as an aid while listening to the recording at trial (see People v Redmond, 41 AD3d 514 [2007]; People v Gkanios, 199 AD2d 411 [1993]; People v Papa, 168 AD2d 692 [1990]; People v Carrington, 151 AD2d 687 [1989]; People v Mincey, 64 AD2d 615 [1978]).

[851]*851In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]), and the period of postrelease supervision was not illegal (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [d]; § 70.70 [3] [b] [i]). Skelos, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Mateo
811 N.E.2d 1053 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Romero
859 N.E.2d 902 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. Redmond
41 A.D.3d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Mincey
64 A.D.2d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Carrington
151 A.D.2d 687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Papa
168 A.D.2d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Gkanios
199 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 A.D.3d 850, 909 N.Y.S.2d 367, 76 A.D.2d 1111, 908 N.Y.S.2d 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cowan-nyappdiv-2010.