People v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frank

174 A.D.2d 1009, 572 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8936

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1009 (People v. Frank) 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. Frank, 174 A.D.2d 1009, 572 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence, including the police chemist’s opinion that the substance seized was cocaine, was legally sufficient to support defendant’s convictions (see, People v Harris, 130 AD2d 939, 940, lv denied 70 NY2d 647). The trial court properly permitted unindicted coconspirator DiGregorio to testify about defendant’s threat against him because it was probative of defendant’s consciousness of guilt (see, People v Reyes, 162 AD2d 357, lv denied 76 NY2d 896; People v Whaley, 144 AD2d 510, lv denied 73 NY2d 897). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in its no inference charge (see, CPL 300.10 [2]) was not preserved for review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice because the charge given did not expressly convey to the jury that defendant should have testified (see, People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836, 839; People v Collins, 170 AD2d 1006). We have considered the remaining contentions raised by counsel and defendant pro se and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence, including the police chemist’s opinion that the substance seized was cocaine, was legally sufficient to support defendant’s convictions (see, People v Harris, 130 AD2d 939, 940, lv denied 70 NY2d 647). The trial court properly permitted unindicted coconspirator DiGregorio to testify about defendant’s threat against him because it was probative of defendant’s consciousness of guilt (see, People v Reyes, 162 AD2d 357, lv denied 76 NY2d 896; People v Whaley, 144 AD2d 510, lv denied 73 NY2d 897). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in its no inference charge (see, CPL 300.10 [2]) was not preserved for review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice because the charge given did not expressly convey to the jury that defendant should have testified (see, People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836, 839; People v Collins, 170 AD2d 1006). We have considered the remaining contentions raised by counsel and defendant pro se and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1009, 572 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frank-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack