People v. Hurd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hurd

200 A.D.2d 521, 606 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 594

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 521 (People v. Hurd) 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. Hurd, 200 A.D.2d 521, 606 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 9, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

[522]*522The admission of evidence of defendant’s possession of a large sum of money at the time of arrest, though error, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Cotto, 169 AD2d 517). Further, in view of the presumption of regularity, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, we conclude that the court had access to a presentence report prior to sentencing the defendant in absentia (see, People v Kalakowski, 120 AD2d 763, 765). Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 9, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of marijuana in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

[522]*522The admission of evidence of defendant’s possession of a large sum of money at the time of arrest, though error, was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Cotto, 169 AD2d 517). Further, in view of the presumption of regularity, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, we conclude that the court had access to a presentence report prior to sentencing the defendant in absentia (see, People v Kalakowski, 120 AD2d 763, 765). Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 521, 606 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hurd-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack