People v. Hardwick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardwick

170 A.D.2d 353, 566 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2096

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 353 (People v. Hardwick) 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. Hardwick, 170 A.D.2d 353, 566 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wallace, J.), rendered May 4, 1989, convicting defendant, after a trial by jury, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after an undercover "buy and bust” operation, in which he was found in possession of some of the pre-recorded "buy money” at the time of his arrest. Defendant argues that the prosecutor engaged in an improper summation, but a reading of the record indicates that after objection, the alleged objectionable statement was not elaborated upon, and no impropriety is perceived. With respect to defendant’s argument that the charge on identification was erroneous, we find that the charge as a whole conveyed the proper legal standard to the jury. (People v Quinones, 157 AD2d 552.) Moreover, as defendant was arrested in possession of "buy” money, there was little doubt as to defendant’s identity. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wallace, J.), rendered May 4, 1989, convicting defendant, after a trial by jury, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after an undercover "buy and bust” operation, in which he was found in possession of some of the pre-recorded "buy money” at the time of his arrest. Defendant argues that the prosecutor engaged in an improper summation, but a reading of the record indicates that after objection, the alleged objectionable statement was not elaborated upon, and no impropriety is perceived. With respect to defendant’s argument that the charge on identification was erroneous, we find that the charge as a whole conveyed the proper legal standard to the jury. (People v Quinones, 157 AD2d 552.) Moreover, as defendant was arrested in possession of "buy” money, there was little doubt as to defendant’s identity. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 353, 566 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardwick-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack