People v. Gray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gray

212 A.D.2d 975, 623 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1831

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Gray) 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. Gray, 212 A.D.2d 975, 623 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1831 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of one count each of criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because an investigator who identified defendant failed to note the existence of defendant’s facial scar. The only proof that defendant had that scar on the date of the transaction was the testimony to that effect by defense witnesses. We conclude that, even if the jury credited that testimony, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The investigator testified that he had a clear view of defendant under good lighting conditions over a period of 10 to 15 minutes. He further testified that defendant was wearing a military fatigue jacket with a flared collar that may have obscured the sides of defendant’s face but did not prevent the investigator from viewing the front of defendant’s face. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of one count each of criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because an investigator who identified defendant failed to note the existence of defendant’s facial scar. The only proof that defendant had that scar on the date of the transaction was the testimony to that effect by defense witnesses. We conclude that, even if the jury credited that testimony, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The investigator testified that he had a clear view of defendant under good lighting conditions over a period of 10 to 15 minutes. He further testified that defendant was wearing a military fatigue jacket with a flared collar that may have obscured the sides of defendant’s face but did not prevent the investigator from viewing the front of defendant’s face. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 975, 623 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gray-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack