People v. Marrant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marrant

268 A.D.2d 387, 700 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 791

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 387 (People v. Marrant) 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. Marrant, 268 A.D.2d 387, 700 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 4, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

By declining to join in his codefendant’s severance motion, defendant waived his present claim that the court’s ruling on the codefendant’s Sandoval application unduly restricted defendant’s ability to cross-examine the codefendant (People v McGee, 68 NY2d 328, 333-334). In any event, the limitations on cross-examination did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Williams, 142 AD2d 310, lv denied 73 NY2d 1023). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 4, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

By declining to join in his codefendant’s severance motion, defendant waived his present claim that the court’s ruling on the codefendant’s Sandoval application unduly restricted defendant’s ability to cross-examine the codefendant (People v McGee, 68 NY2d 328, 333-334). In any event, the limitations on cross-examination did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Williams, 142 AD2d 310, lv denied 73 NY2d 1023). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 387, 700 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marrant-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack