People v. Oquendo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oquendo

250 A.D.2d 419, 676 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5418

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

DecidedMay 12, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 419 (People v. Oquendo) 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. Oquendo, 250 A.D.2d 419, 676 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered December 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application for the appointment, pursuant to County Law § 722-c, of a purported expert to testify at trial that it was unusual for a hand-to-hand dealer to have nothing but buy money on him when arrested, since defendant failed to demonstrate the necessity for such appointment, or that under the circumstances here, where additional money was recovered from defendant and his accomplice, such testimony was relevant to a significant issue at trial (see, Ake v Oklahoma, 470 US 68; People v Chadwick, 227 AD2d 123, lv denied 88 NY2d 981). In any event, any error would be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Chadwick, supra).

The court properly limited cross-examination of the undercover officer regarding his possible intoxication, since there [420]*420was lio basis for believing either that the officer had been intoxicated or that his perception had been impaired by his consumption of a small amount of beer shortly before the sale as part of his disguise. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Mazzarelli 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 (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered December 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 4V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application for the appointment, pursuant to County Law § 722-c, of a purported expert to testify at trial that it was unusual for a hand-to-hand dealer to have nothing but buy money on him when arrested, since defendant failed to demonstrate the necessity for such appointment, or that under the circumstances here, where additional money was recovered from defendant and his accomplice, such testimony was relevant to a significant issue at trial (see, Ake v Oklahoma, 470 US 68; People v Chadwick, 227 AD2d 123, lv denied 88 NY2d 981). In any event, any error would be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Chadwick, supra).

The court properly limited cross-examination of the undercover officer regarding his possible intoxication, since there [420]*420was lio basis for believing either that the officer had been intoxicated or that his perception had been impaired by his consumption of a small amount of beer shortly before the sale as part of his disguise. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 419, 676 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oquendo-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack