People v. Leak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leak

66 A.D.2d 403, 886 N.Y.S.2d 155

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 403 (People v. Leak) 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. Leak, 66 A.D.2d 403, 886 N.Y.S.2d 155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[404]*404Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 17, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony and its rejection of defendant’s claim that the officers fabricated a drug transaction.

The court properly received evidence that the building in front of which the officers observed defendant was a drug-prone location, and that the officers were patrolling there in response to citizen complaints, since this evidence tended to explain the presence and conduct of the police (see e.g. People v Washington, 259 AD2d 365 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1006 [1999]); the fact that the officers described the particular building as drug-prone was not unduly prejudicial. Since defendant was charged with possession with intent to sell, the court also properly received evidence of his possession of $337 in small bills (see e.g. People v White, 257 AD2d 548 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 930 [1999]). Even if police credibility was the main issue, intent to sell was still an essential element, and the People “were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence” (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). We also note that, with respect to both the drug-prone location evidence and the cash, the court provided suitable limiting instructions that minimized any potential prejudice.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

[404]*404Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 17, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies in testimony and its rejection of defendant’s claim that the officers fabricated a drug transaction.

The court properly received evidence that the building in front of which the officers observed defendant was a drug-prone location, and that the officers were patrolling there in response to citizen complaints, since this evidence tended to explain the presence and conduct of the police (see e.g. People v Washington, 259 AD2d 365 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1006 [1999]); the fact that the officers described the particular building as drug-prone was not unduly prejudicial. Since defendant was charged with possession with intent to sell, the court also properly received evidence of his possession of $337 in small bills (see e.g. People v White, 257 AD2d 548 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 930 [1999]). Even if police credibility was the main issue, intent to sell was still an essential element, and the People “were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence” (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). We also note that, with respect to both the drug-prone location evidence and the cash, the court provided suitable limiting instructions that minimized any potential prejudice.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 403, 886 N.Y.S.2d 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leak-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack