People v. Goody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goody

291 A.D.2d 237, 736 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1541

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 237 (People v. Goody) 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. Goody, 291 A.D.2d 237, 736 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered August 27, 1999, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Read as a whole, the court’s charge on accessorial liability, which included the definition set forth in Penal Law § 20.00, conveyed the appropriate standard. In context, the court’s emphasis on the phrase “intentional participation” could not have distracted the jury from the statutory definition (see, People v Johnson, 181 AD2d 509, 510, lv denied 80 NY2d 833). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered August 27, 1999, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Read as a whole, the court’s charge on accessorial liability, which included the definition set forth in Penal Law § 20.00, conveyed the appropriate standard. In context, the court’s emphasis on the phrase “intentional participation” could not have distracted the jury from the statutory definition (see, People v Johnson, 181 AD2d 509, 510, lv denied 80 NY2d 833). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 237, 736 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goody-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack