People v. Gory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gory

30 A.D.2d 975, 294 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Gory) 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. Gory, 30 A.D.2d 975, 294 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered October 11, 1966, affirmed. Defendant was convicted of the unlawful sale and possession of narcotic drugs (former Penal Law, §§ 1751, 1751-a) on the testimony of a police undercover agent who made a purchase of marijuana from defendant. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, in our opinion, established that defendant did not act solely as an agent of the buyer; that there was no entrapment, even if it be assumed that entrapment was a defense prior to the effective date of the present Penal Law; and that the police agent was not an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration (cf. People v. Wright, 20 A D 2d 652, affd. 15 N Y 2d 555; People v. Granger, 29 A D 2d 569; People v. Pasquarello, 282 App. Div. 405, affd. 306 N. Y. 759). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered October 11, 1966, affirmed. Defendant was convicted of the unlawful sale and possession of narcotic drugs (former Penal Law, §§ 1751, 1751-a) on the testimony of a police undercover agent who made a purchase of marijuana from defendant. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, in our opinion, established that defendant did not act solely as an agent of the buyer; that there was no entrapment, even if it be assumed that entrapment was a defense prior to the effective date of the present Penal Law; and that the police agent was not an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration (cf. People v. Wright, 20 A D 2d 652, affd. 15 N Y 2d 555; People v. Granger, 29 A D 2d 569; People v. Pasquarello, 282 App. Div. 405, affd. 306 N. Y. 759). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 975, 294 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gory-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack