People v. Morton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morton

186 A.D.2d 276

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 276 (People v. Morton) 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. Morton, 186 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered October 25, 1990, 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.

Since the defendant did not object to the charge given by the court that evidence of his past crimes was to be used solely to assess his credibility, he failed to preserve his claim of error for appellate review (see, People v Hughes, 138 AD2d 523; People v Willis, 96 AD2d 1108). In any event, we find that the charge as given was correct.

We find the defendant’s other contentions to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, 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 (Firetog, J.), rendered October 25, 1990, 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.

Since the defendant did not object to the charge given by the court that evidence of his past crimes was to be used solely to assess his credibility, he failed to preserve his claim of error for appellate review (see, People v Hughes, 138 AD2d 523; People v Willis, 96 AD2d 1108). In any event, we find that the charge as given was correct.

We find the defendant’s other contentions to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morton-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack