People v. Marcia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marcia

254 A.D.2d 127, 678 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 127 (People v. Marcia) 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. Marcia, 254 A.D.2d 127, 678 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered May 23, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant’s argument, we find the evidence of defendant’s identity to be overwhelming. Defendant’s claim that testimony concerning the arresting officer’s recorded description of defendant’s attire at the time of his arrest constituted improper bolstering is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any such error would have been harmless.

The court properly exercised its discretion by limiting speculative cross-examination of the officers regarding insufficiently related drug sales (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 56; People v Gonzalez, 189 AD2d 701, lv denied 81 NY2d 971).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered May 23, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as second felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant’s argument, we find the evidence of defendant’s identity to be overwhelming. Defendant’s claim that testimony concerning the arresting officer’s recorded description of defendant’s attire at the time of his arrest constituted improper bolstering is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any such error would have been harmless.

The court properly exercised its discretion by limiting speculative cross-examination of the officers regarding insufficiently related drug sales (see, People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 56; People v Gonzalez, 189 AD2d 701, lv denied 81 NY2d 971).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 127, 678 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marcia-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack