People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mack

72 A.D.2d 753, 421 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13979

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 753 (People v. Mack) 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. Mack, 72 A.D.2d 753, 421 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13979 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 21, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts. The testimony at trial revealed that the sole identification of appellant at the time of the sale was made by the undercover officer. Testimony was adduced from the officer in charge of the back-up team to the effect that the undercover officer had pointed appellant out to him on other occasions, in the neighborhood, as the seller. Such testimony constituted improper bolstering, which the Court of Appeals has held to be grounds for a new trial (see People v Trowbridge, 305 [754]*754NY 471), as has this court (see People v Napoletano, 58 AD2d 83). Under these circumstances, reversal and a new trial are mandated. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 21, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts. The testimony at trial revealed that the sole identification of appellant at the time of the sale was made by the undercover officer. Testimony was adduced from the officer in charge of the back-up team to the effect that the undercover officer had pointed appellant out to him on other occasions, in the neighborhood, as the seller. Such testimony constituted improper bolstering, which the Court of Appeals has held to be grounds for a new trial (see People v Trowbridge, 305 [754]*754NY 471), as has this court (see People v Napoletano, 58 AD2d 83). Under these circumstances, reversal and a new trial are mandated. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 753, 421 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mack-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack