People v. Maupin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maupin

213 A.D.2d 205, 624 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2605

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 205 (People v. Maupin) 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. Maupin, 213 A.D.2d 205, 624 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing-Newton, J.), rendered October 5, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5x/i to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court erred in failing to reinstruct the jury on the defense of agency is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of láw, defendant having failed to object to the reinstruction, or to request reinstruction on agency (People v Gibbons, 156 AD2d 263, lv denied 75 NY2d 919) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. [206]*206Were we to consider the claim we would find that the form of the jury’s written inquiry to the court for reinstruction on the definition of "seller” was clear and the court meaningfully responded to the supplemental question (People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131). In addition, we find that there was no need for the court to provide further clarification on the agency defense, which was properly charged by the court before deliberations. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing-Newton, J.), rendered October 5, 1992, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5x/i to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court erred in failing to reinstruct the jury on the defense of agency is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of láw, defendant having failed to object to the reinstruction, or to request reinstruction on agency (People v Gibbons, 156 AD2d 263, lv denied 75 NY2d 919) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. [206]*206Were we to consider the claim we would find that the form of the jury’s written inquiry to the court for reinstruction on the definition of "seller” was clear and the court meaningfully responded to the supplemental question (People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131). In addition, we find that there was no need for the court to provide further clarification on the agency defense, which was properly charged by the court before deliberations. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 205, 624 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maupin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack