People v. Pinkstone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pinkstone

284 A.D.2d 108, 725 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5663

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

DecidedJune 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 108 (People v. Pinkstone) 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. Pinkstone, 284 A.D.2d 108, 725 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered February 1, 2000, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evidence warranted the inference that defendant was a participant in the drug sale (see, People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523).

Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s summation was properly denied since objections to the chai[109]*109lenged comments were sustained and the comments were in part responsive to the defense summation. In any event, they do not warrant reversal (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered February 1, 2000, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evidence warranted the inference that defendant was a participant in the drug sale (see, People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523).

Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s summation was properly denied since objections to the chai[109]*109lenged comments were sustained and the comments were in part responsive to the defense summation. In any event, they do not warrant reversal (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 108, 725 N.Y.S.2d 547, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pinkstone-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack