People v. Foxworth
This text of 197 A.D.2d 703 (People v. Foxworth) 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.
Opinion
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered May 28, 1991, 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 contentions that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s remarks and questioning during cross-examination and by his summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953), are without merit (see, People v Chaitin, 61 NY2d 683, 684; People v Fanfair, 176 AD2d 958; People v Shuff, 168 AD2d 348), or involve harmless error (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).
The defendant also contends that the court’s charge as to identification was inadequate. We disagree. A trial court need not give a fact specific charge as to identification but may give a general instruction on weighing credibility and state that the identification must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the People (see, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 279; People v Nichols, 191 AD2d 518).
[704]*704We find that the defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
197 A.D.2d 703, 602 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-foxworth-nyappdiv-1993.