People v. Ramirez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramirez

125 A.D.2d 343, 508 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62618

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 1986·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Maraño, J.), rendered July 13, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission into evidence of testimony that a large sum of money was recovered from him at the time of his arrest for a single sale of narcotics is without merit. The defendant made no objection to the initial testimony by a police officer that money was recovered from the defendant; therefore, the issue has thus not been preserved for appellate review. In addition, it was the defendant, on cross-examination of that same officer, who elicited testimony as to the amount of money recovered ($325), and thus, if the defendant suffered prejudice, it was caused by his own actions (cf. People v Lizzarra, 70 AD2d 572; People v Jones, 62 AD2d 356). Thus, the court properly denied the defense request for a “limiting” instruction.

Finally, the trial court did not err in denying defense counsel’s request that the jury be permitted to view the scene of the crime (see, People v Rao, 107 AD2d 720). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, 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, Kings County (Maraño, J.), rendered July 13, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission into evidence of testimony that a large sum of money was recovered from him at the time of his arrest for a single sale of narcotics is without merit. The defendant made no objection to the initial testimony by a police officer that money was recovered from the defendant; therefore, the issue has thus not been preserved for appellate review. In addition, it was the defendant, on cross-examination of that same officer, who elicited testimony as to the amount of money recovered ($325), and thus, if the defendant suffered prejudice, it was caused by his own actions (cf. People v Lizzarra, 70 AD2d 572; People v Jones, 62 AD2d 356). Thus, the court properly denied the defense request for a “limiting” instruction.

Finally, the trial court did not err in denying defense counsel’s request that the jury be permitted to view the scene of the crime (see, People v Rao, 107 AD2d 720). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

People v. Ramirez, 125 A.D.2d 343, 508 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

125 A.D.2d 343 (People v. Ramirez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related