People v. Mincey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mincey

255 A.D.2d 158, 679 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11878

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 158 (People v. Mincey) 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. Mincey, 255 A.D.2d 158, 679 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a 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 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning credibility and reliability of identification testimony.

The court properly closed the courtroom during the trial testimony of the undercover police officer, since the Hinton hearing testimony “established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the location of defendant’s arrest, and the anticipated geographic location of the undercover officer’s future investigative work” (People v Brown, 214 AD2d 438, 439, lv denied 86 NY2d 791). We note that the court offered to accommodate defendant’s family members in the event any of them were to attend.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 11, 1995, convicting defendant, after a 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 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning credibility and reliability of identification testimony.

The court properly closed the courtroom during the trial testimony of the undercover police officer, since the Hinton hearing testimony “established the necessary spatial and temporal relationship among the courthouse, the location of defendant’s arrest, and the anticipated geographic location of the undercover officer’s future investigative work” (People v Brown, 214 AD2d 438, 439, lv denied 86 NY2d 791). We note that the court offered to accommodate defendant’s family members in the event any of them were to attend.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Williams, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 158, 679 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mincey-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack