People v. Ralph M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ralph M.

226 A.D.2d 478, 640 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered June 28, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his [479]*479challenges to the admission of testimony by the police witnesses (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879; People v Walker, 220 AD2d 469). In any event, we reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of this testimony. The court admitted properly limited expert testimony regarding the general practices in street-level drug transactions inasmuch as it helped the jury understand the actions of the police that led to the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Tevaha, supra; People v Brown, 218 AD2d 813; People v Kane, 207 AD2d 846, affd 85 NY2d 1024; People v Peoples, 202 AD2d 694).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered June 28, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his [479]*479challenges to the admission of testimony by the police witnesses (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879; People v Walker, 220 AD2d 469). In any event, we reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of this testimony. The court admitted properly limited expert testimony regarding the general practices in street-level drug transactions inasmuch as it helped the jury understand the actions of the police that led to the defendant’s arrest (see, People v Tevaha, supra; People v Brown, 218 AD2d 813; People v Kane, 207 AD2d 846, affd 85 NY2d 1024; People v Peoples, 202 AD2d 694).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Ralph M., 226 A.D.2d 478, 640 N.Y.S.2d 797, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 478 (People v. Ralph M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related