People v. Kahle

136 A.D.2d 570, 523 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 291
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 11, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 570 (People v. Kahle) 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. Kahle, 136 A.D.2d 570, 523 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered January 6, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction. The evidence supports a finding that the defendant acted in concert with the codefendants Knapp and Fridella to sell drugs to undercover police officers and a named informant, and that he was in possession of the drugs immediately prior to his arrest. The testimony of the informant and the arresting officer was not incredible as a matter of law, and the jury could reasonably have resolved the inconsistencies in their accounts in favor of the People (see, People v Augustave, 123 AD2d 323).

[571]*571Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The hearsay statements of the codefendant Fridella were properly admitted into evidence as declarations of a coconspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy, and the defendant’s right of confrontation was not abridged by virtue of the admission of these statements (see, People v Sanders, 56 NY2d 51; People v Salko, 47 NY2d 230; People v Grant, 113 AD2d 311, Iv denied 67 NY2d 762). The remaining contentions raised by the defendant are either unpreserved or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Saraguard
215 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.2d 570, 523 N.Y.S.2d 564, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kahle-nyappdiv-1988.