People v. Miles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miles

262 A.D.2d 159, 690 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6724

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

DecidedJune 17, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 159 (People v. Miles) 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. Miles, 262 A.D.2d 159, 690 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations.

The court’s curative instructions, which the jury is presumed to have followed, were sufficient to prevent defendant from being prejudiced by the challenged portions of the People’s summation (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner 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 (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations.

The court’s curative instructions, which the jury is presumed to have followed, were sufficient to prevent defendant from being prejudiced by the challenged portions of the People’s summation (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300). Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 159, 690 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miles-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack