People v. Jeffrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jeffrey

78 A.D.2d 768, 433 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13324

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 768 (People v. Jeffrey) 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. Jeffrey, 78 A.D.2d 768, 433 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dimissed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a [769]*769judgment upon a jury verdict convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law, § 220.41 [prior to Sept. 1, 1979 amdt]) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law, § 220.39 [prior to Sept. 1, 1979 amdt]). The only fair conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant acted as the agent for the confidential informant and for the buyer, who was an undercover police officer. There being reasonable doubt as a matter of law that the defendant was the agent of the buyer, the indictment must be dismissed (People v Bethea, 73 AD2d 920; People v Gonzales, 66 AD2d 828; People v Munoz, 54 AD2d 844). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court—criminal sale of controlled substance, second degree, and another charge.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dimissed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a [769]*769judgment upon a jury verdict convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law, § 220.41 [prior to Sept. 1, 1979 amdt]) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law, § 220.39 [prior to Sept. 1, 1979 amdt]). The only fair conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant acted as the agent for the confidential informant and for the buyer, who was an undercover police officer. There being reasonable doubt as a matter of law that the defendant was the agent of the buyer, the indictment must be dismissed (People v Bethea, 73 AD2d 920; People v Gonzales, 66 AD2d 828; People v Munoz, 54 AD2d 844). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court—criminal sale of controlled substance, second degree, and another charge.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 768, 433 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jeffrey-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack