People v. Ellsworth

176 A.D.2d 127, 574 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11506
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 12, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 127 (People v. Ellsworth) 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. Ellsworth, 176 A.D.2d 127, 574 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James J. Leff, J.), rendered June 6, 1990, [128]*128convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate prison term of from 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

We reject defendant’s argument that the court erred in admitting explanatory testimony by the undercover police officer respecting general street drug sale practices inasmuch as this testimony was admissible to explain the absence of prerecorded buy money and contraband from the items seized from the defendant upon his arrest. (See, People v Roman, 171 AD2d 562, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000.) Defendant argued a case of mistaken identity at trial, and highlighted the fact that neither buy money nor contraband was found upon defendant’s person at the time of his arrest. However, there was eyewitness testimony that defendant was seen transferring the prerecorded buy money to an accomplice who was later observed by arresting officers dropping what turned out to be the prerecorded five dollar bill used in the sale. In any event, the evidence in this case, including two eyewitnesses to the sale and the seizing of prerecorded buy money from defendant’s accomplice, presents overwhelming evidence of guilt such as to render any possible error harmless. (See, People v Matos, 165 AD2d 767, lv denied 76 NY2d 988.)

As to defendant’s argument his sentence is excessive because the evidence indicates only a single sale was involved, the claim is without merit in light of the record evidence and defendant’s lengthy criminal record, which includes twelve convictions since 1985, some of which were drug related. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Washington
227 A.D.2d 126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Alston
225 A.D.2d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Flocker
223 A.D.2d 451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. LeCount
221 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Pagan
221 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Walker
220 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Brown
218 A.D.2d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Tevaha
204 A.D.2d 92 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Kelsey
194 A.D.2d 248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Page
187 A.D.2d 537 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Gonzalez
180 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 A.D.2d 127, 574 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ellsworth-nyappdiv-1991.