People v. Marin

157 A.D.2d 521, 549 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 294
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 16, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 521 (People v. Marin) 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. Marin, 157 A.D.2d 521, 549 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered December 18, 1987, 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 to concurrent 4Vi-to-9-year indeterminate sentences, is unanimously affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony at trial with respect to an earlier uncharged drug sale. As a general rule, New York’s courts exclude proof tending to establish crimes other than those upon which defendant has been indicted. However, evidence of prior uncharged crimes may be received if it helps to establish some element of the crime under consideration or is relevant because, as here, it falls within the recognized "intent” exception to the Molineux rule. (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987].) In the case herein Officer Dade’s testimony was admissible to prove defendant’s intent on the possession count. Furthermore, any prejudice to defendant was reduced by the court’s limiting instruction on the use of Dade’s testimony, charging that the evidence was admitted solely with regard to the possession and not to the sale charge.

Defendant’s other claims of error based upon the court’s instructions concerning reasonable doubt, lesser included offenses and unfair marshaling of the evidence have not been preserved for review. In any event, these claims are meritless. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Dais
222 A.D.2d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Rodriguez
181 A.D.2d 750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Barcliff
178 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Castaneda
173 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Guzman
173 A.D.2d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Diaz
170 A.D.2d 395 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Quinones
166 A.D.2d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Brown
160 A.D.2d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 A.D.2d 521, 549 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marin-nyappdiv-1990.