People v. Lewis

266 A.D.2d 912, 698 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11819
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Lewis. Read the opinion of the Court — 247 A.D.2d 866

Opinion

—Judgment [913]*913unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of two counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). Defendant contends that County Court erred in instructing the jury on the agency defense because it failed to tailor its charge to the facts. We disagree. The court properly determined that there was no evidence indicating that defendant obtained a portion of the drugs for himself and a portion for the undercover officer (cf., People v Andujas, 79 NY2d 113, 118).

The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow a defense witness to testify regarding collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching a prosecution witness (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 288-289). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Herkimer County Court, Kirk, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

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

People v. Lewis, 266 A.D.2d 912, 698 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

266 A.D.2d 912 (People v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pavao
451 N.E.2d 216 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Andujas
588 N.E.2d 754 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)