People v. Dees

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dees

184 A.D.2d 652

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

DecidedJune 15, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 652 (People v. Dees) 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. Dees, 184 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), [653]*653rendered September 15, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly allowed the undercover officer to testify as to a stationhouse identification that occurred approximately two hours after she had purchased cocaine from the defendant. Inasmuch as there is no evidence that the defendant moved to suppress the testimony, the claim of error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, in the absence of such a motion, there is no record upon which this court can exercise intelligent judicial review of the issue.

The defendant’s remaining contention that the court improperly refused to dismiss a juror who appeared to be asleep during the court’s charge is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Indeed, the defendant opposed the dismissal of the juror during the trial. In any event, we conclude that the inquiry undertaken by the court, upon which it based its determination that the juror had not been sleeping, was sufficiently probing (see, People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 689). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), [653]*653rendered September 15, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly allowed the undercover officer to testify as to a stationhouse identification that occurred approximately two hours after she had purchased cocaine from the defendant. Inasmuch as there is no evidence that the defendant moved to suppress the testimony, the claim of error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Moreover, in the absence of such a motion, there is no record upon which this court can exercise intelligent judicial review of the issue.

The defendant’s remaining contention that the court improperly refused to dismiss a juror who appeared to be asleep during the court’s charge is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Indeed, the defendant opposed the dismissal of the juror during the trial. In any event, we conclude that the inquiry undertaken by the court, upon which it based its determination that the juror had not been sleeping, was sufficiently probing (see, People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 689). Sullivan, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dees-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack