People v. Jenkins

228 A.D.2d 344, 644 N.Y.2d 614, 644 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7238
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Jenkins. Read the opinion of the Court — 209 A.D.2d 164

Opinion

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its verdict. Defendant’s argument concerning the sufficiency of the possession count is unpreserved (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit. The record amply establishes that defendant acted with his codefendant both in the sale and in the possession of the drugs with intent to sell.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

People v. Jenkins, 228 A.D.2d 344, 644 N.Y.2d 614, 644 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 344 (People v. Jenkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)