People v. Gerard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gerard

10 A.D.3d 579, 782 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 579 (People v. Gerard) 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. Gerard, 10 A.D.3d 579, 782 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered June 8, 2000, 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 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

When binoculars used by the police to observe a drug transaction are in evidence, it is within the court’s discretion to permit the jurors to look through the binoculars in order to perceive their degree of magnification (People v Davis, 253 AD2d 687 [580]*580[1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1030 [1998]; People v Lennon, 223 AD2d 403 [1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 1021 [1996]; People v Rivera, 215 AD2d 102 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 801 [1995]; see also People v Mathison, 287 AD2d 384, 385 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 706 [2002]). In this case, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting a request from the deliberating jury to leave the windowless jury room and look out the hallway window using the binoculars. The court provided thorough supervision and cautionary instructions. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), rendered June 8, 2000, 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 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

When binoculars used by the police to observe a drug transaction are in evidence, it is within the court’s discretion to permit the jurors to look through the binoculars in order to perceive their degree of magnification (People v Davis, 253 AD2d 687 [580]*580[1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1030 [1998]; People v Lennon, 223 AD2d 403 [1996], lv denied 87 NY2d 1021 [1996]; People v Rivera, 215 AD2d 102 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 801 [1995]; see also People v Mathison, 287 AD2d 384, 385 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 706 [2002]). In this case, the court properly exercised its discretion in granting a request from the deliberating jury to leave the windowless jury room and look out the hallway window using the binoculars. The court provided thorough supervision and cautionary instructions. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 579, 782 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gerard-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack