People v. Mosby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mosby

237 A.D.2d 990, 654 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3655

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 990 (People v. Mosby) 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. Mosby, 237 A.D.2d 990, 654 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The argument of defendant that County Court erred in admitting evidence that he possessed $1,026 at the time of his arrest is not preserved for our review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Were we to review the argument, we would conclude that it is without merit. Because defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, evidence of money found on defendant’s person at the time of arrest is probative of defendant’s intent (see, People v Strunkey, 221 AD2d 387, lv denied 87 NY2d 925; People v Sanchez, 197 AD2d 359, 360, lv denied 82 NY2d 902; People v Gadsden, 192 AD2d 1103, lv denied 82 NY2d 718), and it was permissible for the prosecutor to comment upon the evidence on summation (see, People v Sanchez, supra). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The argument of defendant that County Court erred in admitting evidence that he possessed $1,026 at the time of his arrest is not preserved for our review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Were we to review the argument, we would conclude that it is without merit. Because defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell, evidence of money found on defendant’s person at the time of arrest is probative of defendant’s intent (see, People v Strunkey, 221 AD2d 387, lv denied 87 NY2d 925; People v Sanchez, 197 AD2d 359, 360, lv denied 82 NY2d 902; People v Gadsden, 192 AD2d 1103, lv denied 82 NY2d 718), and it was permissible for the prosecutor to comment upon the evidence on summation (see, People v Sanchez, supra). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 990, 654 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mosby-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack