People v. Ducos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ducos

213 A.D.2d 666, 624 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3170

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 666 (People v. Ducos) 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. Ducos, 213 A.D.2d 666, 624 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [667]*667County (Demarest, J.), rendered October 20, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in providing the jury with a copy of the indictment during deliberations is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, any error was harmless (see, People v Moore, 71 NY2d 684).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, 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, Kings [667]*667County (Demarest, J.), rendered October 20, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in providing the jury with a copy of the indictment during deliberations is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, any error was harmless (see, People v Moore, 71 NY2d 684).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Copertino, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 666, 624 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ducos-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack