People v. Jefferson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jefferson

181 A.D.2d 1007, 581 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4600

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 1007 (People v. Jefferson) 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. Jefferson, 181 A.D.2d 1007, 581 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not err in denying defendant’s request for disclosure of the identity of the informant (see, People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, cert denied 419 US 1012). Although the informant introduced the undercover officer to defendant, he did not witness the sale. The proof of identification was overwhelming, and defendant’s testimony that he was at home at the time of the sale was weak and of dubious credibility.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the illegal drugs seized during defendant’s arrest. The police had probable cause to make the arrest based upon the knowledge of one of the investigating officers who had witnessed the sale of drugs by defendant, which knowledge was imputed to [1008]*1008the arresting officer (see, People v Wroblewski, 109 AD2d 39, 42-43, affd 67 NY2d 933, cert denied 479 US 845; see also, People v Jennings, 54 NY2d 518, 522; People v Bouton, 50 NY2d 130, 136; People v Morales, 116 AD2d 671, lv denied 67 NY2d 887).

The issue of whether the court should have given a missing witness charge to the jury was not preserved for appellate review.

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not err in denying defendant’s request for disclosure of the identity of the informant (see, People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, cert denied 419 US 1012). Although the informant introduced the undercover officer to defendant, he did not witness the sale. The proof of identification was overwhelming, and defendant’s testimony that he was at home at the time of the sale was weak and of dubious credibility.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the illegal drugs seized during defendant’s arrest. The police had probable cause to make the arrest based upon the knowledge of one of the investigating officers who had witnessed the sale of drugs by defendant, which knowledge was imputed to [1008]*1008the arresting officer (see, People v Wroblewski, 109 AD2d 39, 42-43, affd 67 NY2d 933, cert denied 479 US 845; see also, People v Jennings, 54 NY2d 518, 522; People v Bouton, 50 NY2d 130, 136; People v Morales, 116 AD2d 671, lv denied 67 NY2d 887).

The issue of whether the court should have given a missing witness charge to the jury was not preserved for appellate review.

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 1007, 581 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jefferson-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack