People v. Peguero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peguero

88 A.D.3d 589, 931 N.Y.2d 496

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The court properly exercised its discretion when it admitted expert testimony concerning circumstances that indicate an intent to sell drugs (see People v Hicks, 2 NY3d 750 [2004]). Defendant did not preserve his claim that the expert improperly opined that defendant was a drug seller, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the testimony was within the scope permitted under Hicks, and that defendant was not prejudiced in any event. [590]*590Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

The court properly exercised its discretion when it admitted expert testimony concerning circumstances that indicate an intent to sell drugs (see People v Hicks, 2 NY3d 750 [2004]). Defendant did not preserve his claim that the expert improperly opined that defendant was a drug seller, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the testimony was within the scope permitted under Hicks, and that defendant was not prejudiced in any event. [590]*590Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

People v. Peguero, 88 A.D.3d 589, 931 N.Y.2d 496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

88 A.D.3d 589 (People v. Peguero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related