People v. Figueroa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Figueroa

224 A.D.2d 307, 642 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1257

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 307 (People v. Figueroa) 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. Figueroa, 224 A.D.2d 307, 642 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered December 9, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [308]*308criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of A1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The undercover detective’s testimony plausibly recounted defendant’s sale of heroin and was corroborated by the fact that defendant possessed prerecorded buy money at the time of his arrest.

Defendant’s argument that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the undercover detectives is without merit. The trial court was well within its discretion in limiting, as irrelevant, defense counsel’s inquiry into the officer’s prior unsuccessful efforts to arrest drug dealers on the day of defendant’s arrest. Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was no indication of a police motive to fabricate testimony (see, People v Perry, 203 AD2d 131, lv denied 83 NY2d 970). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered December 9, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [308]*308criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of A1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The undercover detective’s testimony plausibly recounted defendant’s sale of heroin and was corroborated by the fact that defendant possessed prerecorded buy money at the time of his arrest.

Defendant’s argument that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the undercover detectives is without merit. The trial court was well within its discretion in limiting, as irrelevant, defense counsel’s inquiry into the officer’s prior unsuccessful efforts to arrest drug dealers on the day of defendant’s arrest. Contrary to defendant’s contention, there was no indication of a police motive to fabricate testimony (see, People v Perry, 203 AD2d 131, lv denied 83 NY2d 970). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 307, 642 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-figueroa-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack