People v. Garcia

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Garcia

633 N.E.2d 1094, 83 N.Y.2d 817, 611 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 269

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 633 N.E.2d 1094 (People v. Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Garcia, 633 N.E.2d 1094, 83 N.Y.2d 817, 611 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 269 (N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Garcia and two others were arrested in a buy- and-bust operation in the Bronx. Defendant was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

At trial, a detective who had participated in the operation testified concerning the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Over defendant’s objection, the detective was permitted to testify as an expert regarding drug transactions at the street level. His expert testimony was limited to the definitions of the terms "hawker” (the person who advertises the drug being sold), "money man” (the person who holds the money), and "hand-to-hand” (the person who passes the drugs to the customer).

The jury convicted defendant, and the Appellate Division, *819 First Department, affirmed the judgment, with two Justices dissenting (196 AD2d 433), one of whom granted defendant leave to appeal to this Court.

When the prosecution sought to qualify its expert on the organization of narcotics trafficking operations, defendant objected on the ground that such testimony would prejudice because it would mislead the jury into believing that defendant was involved in some narcotics organization, when only a single sale was at issue. That objection does not preserve defendant’s current claims that the expert testimony was inadmissible because it was unnecessary and that it improperly bolstered the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, including the expert who was also an eyewitness. We therefore may not address these claims.

We are satisfied on this record and in this context that there is no merit to the preserved claim that the detective’s expert testimony implied defendant’s involvement in extensive drug trafficking, especially since the trial court limited the testimony to the definitions of the terms "hawker”, "hand-to-hand” and "money man”.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Garcia and two others were arrested in a buy- and-bust operation in the Bronx. Defendant was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

At trial, a detective who had participated in the operation testified concerning the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Over defendant’s objection, the detective was permitted to testify as an expert regarding drug transactions at the street level. His expert testimony was limited to the definitions of the terms "hawker” (the person who advertises the drug being sold), "money man” (the person who holds the money), and "hand-to-hand” (the person who passes the drugs to the customer).

The jury convicted defendant, and the Appellate Division, *819 First Department, affirmed the judgment, with two Justices dissenting (196 AD2d 433), one of whom granted defendant leave to appeal to this Court.

When the prosecution sought to qualify its expert on the organization of narcotics trafficking operations, defendant objected on the ground that such testimony would prejudice because it would mislead the jury into believing that defendant was involved in some narcotics organization, when only a single sale was at issue. That objection does not preserve defendant’s current claims that the expert testimony was inadmissible because it was unnecessary and that it improperly bolstered the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, including the expert who was also an eyewitness. We therefore may not address these claims.

We are satisfied on this record and in this context that there is no merit to the preserved claim that the detective’s expert testimony implied defendant’s involvement in extensive drug trafficking, especially since the trial court limited the testimony to the definitions of the terms "hawker”, "hand-to-hand” and "money man”.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 N.E.2d 1094, 83 N.Y.2d 817, 611 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garcia-ny-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack