People v. Pintado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pintado

76 A.D.2d 936, 429 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12044

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

DecidedJune 30, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 76 A.D.2d 936 (People v. Pintado) 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. Pintado, 76 A.D.2d 936, 429 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 18, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Although we agree with defendant that the trial court erred in failing to give an accomplice instruction notwithstanding defendant’s failure to so request (see People v Ramos, 68 AD2d 748), we conclude that the proof of guilt without the accomplice testimony is overwhelming and accordingly a reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (see People v Ramos, supra, p 754). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and have found them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 18, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Although we agree with defendant that the trial court erred in failing to give an accomplice instruction notwithstanding defendant’s failure to so request (see People v Ramos, 68 AD2d 748), we conclude that the proof of guilt without the accomplice testimony is overwhelming and accordingly a reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (see People v Ramos, supra, p 754). We have examined defendant’s other contentions and have found them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 936, 429 N.Y.S.2d 269, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pintado-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack