People v. Green

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Green

3 A.D.3d 428, 770 N.Y.S.2d 621

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 428 (People v. Green) 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. Green, 3 A.D.3d 428, 770 N.Y.S.2d 621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[429]*429Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Stone, J.), rendered June 14, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the prosecutor’s request for a missing witness charge with respect to defendant’s wife, who was in a position to provide material, noncumulative testimony, in that the evidence established that she accompanied defendant throughout the time period at issue (see People v Hagans, 306 AD2d 149 [2003]).

Even assuming that some of the prosecutor’s voir dire questions to prospective jurors about their knowledge of, and attitudes toward, drug trafficking were inappropriate (see People v Byrd, 284 AD2d 201 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 679 [2001]), these questions could not have caused any prejudice to defendant. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

[429]*429Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Stone, J.), rendered June 14, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the prosecutor’s request for a missing witness charge with respect to defendant’s wife, who was in a position to provide material, noncumulative testimony, in that the evidence established that she accompanied defendant throughout the time period at issue (see People v Hagans, 306 AD2d 149 [2003]).

Even assuming that some of the prosecutor’s voir dire questions to prospective jurors about their knowledge of, and attitudes toward, drug trafficking were inappropriate (see People v Byrd, 284 AD2d 201 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 679 [2001]), these questions could not have caused any prejudice to defendant. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 428, 770 N.Y.S.2d 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-green-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack