People v. Flores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flores

26 A.D.3d 196, 811 N.Y.S.2d 13

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 196 (People v. Flores) 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. Flores, 26 A.D.3d 196, 811 N.Y.S.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.), rendered October 29, 1999, as amended March 16, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of a contemporaneous uncharged drug sale. In addition to being relevant to defendant’s intent to sell (see e.g. People v Mendoza, 245 AD2d 177 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 975 [1998]), this evidence provided a complete narrative of the events leading to defendant’s arrest, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect (see e.g. People v Pressley, 216 AD2d 202 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 800 [1995]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People “were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence” (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.), rendered October 29, 1999, as amended March 16, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of a contemporaneous uncharged drug sale. In addition to being relevant to defendant’s intent to sell (see e.g. People v Mendoza, 245 AD2d 177 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 975 [1998]), this evidence provided a complete narrative of the events leading to defendant’s arrest, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect (see e.g. People v Pressley, 216 AD2d 202 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 800 [1995]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People “were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence” (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 196, 811 N.Y.S.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flores-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack