People v. Paisley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Paisley

262 A.D.2d 161, 691 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6804

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

DecidedJune 17, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 161 (People v. Paisley) 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. Paisley, 262 A.D.2d 161, 691 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered May 28, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession 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, specifically as to the element of intent to sell, was not against the weight of the evidence, based on the testimony of an experienced officer’s binocular observations of defendant’s apparent sale of small transparent bags to a customer for cash. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered May 28, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession 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, specifically as to the element of intent to sell, was not against the weight of the evidence, based on the testimony of an experienced officer’s binocular observations of defendant’s apparent sale of small transparent bags to a customer for cash. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 161, 691 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-paisley-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack