People v. London

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. London

248 A.D.2d 554, 669 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2534

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 554 (People v. London) 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. London, 248 A.D.2d 554, 669 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered March 15, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[555]*555Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that a new trial is required because the trial court improperly charged the jury regarding consciousness of guilt evidence. The charge, when viewed in its entirety, conveyed the proper standard of law and did not confuse or mislead the jury (see, Cupp v Naughten, 414 US 141, 146-147; People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821, 823; People v Pol, 226 AD2d 320; see also, People v Harrison, 151 AD2d 501).

Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered March 15, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[555]*555Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that a new trial is required because the trial court improperly charged the jury regarding consciousness of guilt evidence. The charge, when viewed in its entirety, conveyed the proper standard of law and did not confuse or mislead the jury (see, Cupp v Naughten, 414 US 141, 146-147; People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821, 823; People v Pol, 226 AD2d 320; see also, People v Harrison, 151 AD2d 501).

Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 554, 669 N.Y.S.2d 903, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-london-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack