People v. Madison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Madison

247 A.D.2d 233, 668 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 895

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 233 (People v. Madison) 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. Madison, 247 A.D.2d 233, 668 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered March 21, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The observing officer’s testimony concerning defendant’s actions immediately preceding the charged sale did not constitute evidence of uncharged crimes. Even assuming the testimony suggested the existence of contemporaneous uncharged sales, such evidence would have been admissible on the charge of possession with intent to sell, as well as the sale charge (People v Pressley, 216 AD2d 202, lv denied 86 NY2d 800).

[234]*234The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion.

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Alpert, J.), rendered March 21, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The observing officer’s testimony concerning defendant’s actions immediately preceding the charged sale did not constitute evidence of uncharged crimes. Even assuming the testimony suggested the existence of contemporaneous uncharged sales, such evidence would have been admissible on the charge of possession with intent to sell, as well as the sale charge (People v Pressley, 216 AD2d 202, lv denied 86 NY2d 800).

[234]*234The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion.

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 233, 668 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-madison-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack