People v. Quinones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quinones

210 A.D.2d 176, 620 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 1994·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered January 3, 1992, convicting defendant, after 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 4Vz to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Moreover, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason on the record before us to disturb its determination.

[177] The trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the police officer who arrested defendant, since the questions asked were speculative, and lacked a good faith basis, and the probative value of the matters sought to be elicited was outweighed by the danger that the main issues would be obscured and the jury confused (People v Harrell, 209 AD2d 160). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered January 3, 1992, convicting defendant, after 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 4Vz to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Moreover, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason on the record before us to disturb its determination.

[177] The trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the police officer who arrested defendant, since the questions asked were speculative, and lacked a good faith basis, and the probative value of the matters sought to be elicited was outweighed by the danger that the main issues would be obscured and the jury confused (People v Harrell, 209 AD2d 160). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

People v. Quinones, 210 A.D.2d 176, 620 N.Y.S.2d 960, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

210 A.D.2d 176 (People v. Quinones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related