People v. Delisser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delisser

286 A.D.2d 402, 728 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8010

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

DecidedAugust 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 402 (People v. Delisser) 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. Delisser, 286 A.D.2d 402, 728 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 27, 1998, 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.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court’s identification charge constituted reversible error. “Whether the charge is appropriate in an individual case is * * * a matter for the Trial Judge’s discretion” (People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873, 874). Here, the trial court gave an expanded identification charge, which sufficiently apprised the jurors that the reasonable doubt standard applied to the undercover officer’s identification testimony, and instructed them to carefully consider the accuracy and veracity of the undercover officer’s identification testimony (see, People v Hambrick, 122 AD2d 163, 164; People v Barry, 215 AD2d 397; People v Stitt, 234 AD2d 401).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Goldstein, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 27, 1998, 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.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the trial court’s identification charge constituted reversible error. “Whether the charge is appropriate in an individual case is * * * a matter for the Trial Judge’s discretion” (People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873, 874). Here, the trial court gave an expanded identification charge, which sufficiently apprised the jurors that the reasonable doubt standard applied to the undercover officer’s identification testimony, and instructed them to carefully consider the accuracy and veracity of the undercover officer’s identification testimony (see, People v Hambrick, 122 AD2d 163, 164; People v Barry, 215 AD2d 397; People v Stitt, 234 AD2d 401).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Goldstein, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 402, 728 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delisser-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack