People v. Mojica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mojica

239 A.D.2d 609, 658 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5631

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

DecidedMay 27, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Mojica) 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. Mojica, 239 A.D.2d 609, 658 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered October 12, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In this so-called "buy and bust” case, the defense counsel extensively cross-examined the police concerning their failure to use various additional investigative techniques. The defendant contends that reversal is warranted because the court instructed the jury that "there is no requirement that the police use any particular investigative technique or method”. However, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not except to the charge as given (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the trial court’s instruction to the jury does not warrant reversal since the charge as a whole conveyed the correct legal standard to be applied (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered October 12, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In this so-called "buy and bust” case, the defense counsel extensively cross-examined the police concerning their failure to use various additional investigative techniques. The defendant contends that reversal is warranted because the court instructed the jury that "there is no requirement that the police use any particular investigative technique or method”. However, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not except to the charge as given (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the trial court’s instruction to the jury does not warrant reversal since the charge as a whole conveyed the correct legal standard to be applied (see, People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 609, 658 N.Y.S.2d 977, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mojica-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack