People v. Haywood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haywood

264 A.D.2d 633, 694 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9280

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 633 (People v. Haywood) 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. Haywood, 264 A.D.2d 633, 694 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered June 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that testimony by the arresting officer to the effect that he followed defendant and the codefendant because of a gesture from the undercover officer indicating possible danger should have been excluded as hearsay and “bolstering” is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the testimony as to the gesture was not offered for its [634]*634truth and was properly admitted to explain the arresting officer’s actions. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered June 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that testimony by the arresting officer to the effect that he followed defendant and the codefendant because of a gesture from the undercover officer indicating possible danger should have been excluded as hearsay and “bolstering” is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the testimony as to the gesture was not offered for its [634]*634truth and was properly admitted to explain the arresting officer’s actions. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 633, 694 N.Y.S.2d 665, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haywood-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack