People v. Gabriel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gabriel

125 A.D.2d 406, 509 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62692

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

DecidedDecember 8, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 406 (People v. Gabriel) 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. Gabriel, 125 A.D.2d 406, 509 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered September 16, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in allowing the defendant to be cross-examined with respect to his involvement in prior un[407]*407charged drug transactions. Since the defendant offered an agency defense, he raised an issue as to his intent to engage in the sale of drugs. The People were thus entitled to rebut the assertion of that defense (see, People v Calvano, 30 NY2d 199, 203, 205; People v Rosario, 122 AD2d 85; People v Bristow, 106 AD2d 510). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered September 16, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in allowing the defendant to be cross-examined with respect to his involvement in prior un[407]*407charged drug transactions. Since the defendant offered an agency defense, he raised an issue as to his intent to engage in the sale of drugs. The People were thus entitled to rebut the assertion of that defense (see, People v Calvano, 30 NY2d 199, 203, 205; People v Rosario, 122 AD2d 85; People v Bristow, 106 AD2d 510). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 406, 509 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gabriel-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack