People v. McDowell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McDowell

174 A.D.2d 1017

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

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1017 (People v. McDowell) 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. McDowell, 174 A.D.2d 1017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People failed to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, his agency defense. From our review of the record, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to determine that defendant was not merely an agent of the buyer and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s further contentions that prosecutorial misconduct during summation mandates reversal and that the trial court’s interested witness charge was improper have not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the trial court’s interested witness charge was in all respects proper (see, People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 967).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present-Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the People failed to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, his agency defense. From our review of the record, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to determine that defendant was not merely an agent of the buyer and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s further contentions that prosecutorial misconduct during summation mandates reversal and that the trial court’s interested witness charge was improper have not been preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the trial court’s interested witness charge was in all respects proper (see, People v Agosto, 73 NY2d 963, 967).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present-Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcdowell-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack