People v. McKinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McKinney

82 A.D.2d 895, 440 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14604

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

DecidedJune 22, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 895 (People v. McKinney) 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. McKinney, 82 A.D.2d 895, 440 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), rendered August 21,1979, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant failed to preserve for review the error claimed in the jury charge with respect to agency. We therefore find the alleged error to have been waived (see People v Darrisaw, 49 NY2d 786; People v Benoit, 72 AD2d 648). We see no reason to consider the claim of error in the interest of justice. The defendant concedes the diligent efforts made by the People to locate the informer, whose disappearance was not attributable to the People. He has failed, however, to demonstrate that the missing informer, a longtime friend, would have provided material and relevant testimony tending to exculpate the defendant. As a result, his claim that dismissal of the indictment is required is without foundation (see People v Maneiro, 49 NY2d 769; People v Santiago, 44 NY2d 924; People u Jenkins, 41 NY2d 307). Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), rendered August 21,1979, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant failed to preserve for review the error claimed in the jury charge with respect to agency. We therefore find the alleged error to have been waived (see People v Darrisaw, 49 NY2d 786; People v Benoit, 72 AD2d 648). We see no reason to consider the claim of error in the interest of justice. The defendant concedes the diligent efforts made by the People to locate the informer, whose disappearance was not attributable to the People. He has failed, however, to demonstrate that the missing informer, a longtime friend, would have provided material and relevant testimony tending to exculpate the defendant. As a result, his claim that dismissal of the indictment is required is without foundation (see People v Maneiro, 49 NY2d 769; People v Santiago, 44 NY2d 924; People u Jenkins, 41 NY2d 307). Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 895, 440 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mckinney-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack