People v. Jimenez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jimenez

209 A.D.2d 331, 619 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11574

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 331 (People v. Jimenez) 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. Jimenez, 209 A.D.2d 331, 619 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered September 23, 1992, 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 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

[332]*332Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

An agency defense charge was not required since there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting defendant’s claim that he acted as a mere instrumentality of the purchaser. Defendant had no prior relationship with the purchaser and defendant took the initiative and made the sale possible (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930).

While the People should have delivered to defendant three reports prepared by the arresting officer, the reports were inadvertently lost. The court’s sanction, issuance of an adverse inference charge, was appropriate since there was no prejudice to defendant inasmuch as it was the undercover officer’s identification which was central, and not that of the arresting officer (see, People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940). Concur— Ross, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered September 23, 1992, 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 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

[332]*332Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

An agency defense charge was not required since there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting defendant’s claim that he acted as a mere instrumentality of the purchaser. Defendant had no prior relationship with the purchaser and defendant took the initiative and made the sale possible (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930).

While the People should have delivered to defendant three reports prepared by the arresting officer, the reports were inadvertently lost. The court’s sanction, issuance of an adverse inference charge, was appropriate since there was no prejudice to defendant inasmuch as it was the undercover officer’s identification which was central, and not that of the arresting officer (see, People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940). Concur— Ross, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 331, 619 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jimenez-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack