People v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nelson

26 A.D.3d 195, 811 N.Y.S.2d 14

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 195 (People v. Nelson) 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. Nelson, 26 A.D.3d 195, 811 N.Y.S.2d 14 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered March 16, 2004, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

The court properly permitted the undercover officer, who was currently involved in highly confidential special investigations, to identify himself only by his shield number, since concerns for his safety and the integrity of his assignment warranted anonymity. The court’s ruling satisfied defendant’s right of confrontation and the requirements of People v Waver (3 NY3d 748 [2004]).

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s mistrial motion made after the deliberating jury indicated it was deadlocked, and instead delivered an Allen charge (see Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 250 [1984]). Defendant’s challenge to the charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge was neither coercive nor unbalanced. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered March 16, 2004, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of alleged inconsistencies (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

The court properly permitted the undercover officer, who was currently involved in highly confidential special investigations, to identify himself only by his shield number, since concerns for his safety and the integrity of his assignment warranted anonymity. The court’s ruling satisfied defendant’s right of confrontation and the requirements of People v Waver (3 NY3d 748 [2004]).

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s mistrial motion made after the deliberating jury indicated it was deadlocked, and instead delivered an Allen charge (see Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 250 [1984]). Defendant’s challenge to the charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge was neither coercive nor unbalanced. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 195, 811 N.Y.S.2d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nelson-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack