People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzalez

268 A.D.2d 255, 701 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 316

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 255 (People v. Gonzalez) 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. Gonzalez, 268 A.D.2d 255, 701 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered February 11, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly admitted testimony that the defen[256]*256dont and his two co-defendants forced the undercover officer to sample the heroin he had purchased in order to prove that he was not a police officer. The testimony was admissible because it completed the narrative of the sale and tended to prove that defendant was a participant in the sale (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233).

The court’s Sandoval ruling was an appropriate exercise of discretion that balanced the proper factors (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered February 11, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly admitted testimony that the defen[256]*256dont and his two co-defendants forced the undercover officer to sample the heroin he had purchased in order to prove that he was not a police officer. The testimony was admissible because it completed the narrative of the sale and tended to prove that defendant was a participant in the sale (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233).

The court’s Sandoval ruling was an appropriate exercise of discretion that balanced the proper factors (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur—Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 255, 701 N.Y.S.2d 365, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack