People v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramos

26 A.D.3d 197, 808 N.Y.S.2d 897

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 197 (People v. Ramos) 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. Ramos, 26 A.D.3d 197, 808 N.Y.S.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered March 31, 2003, as amended April 15, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s jury instructions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the charge as a whole was balanced and sufficiently conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards by which to evaluate the credibility of the police informant (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 659 [1994]; People v McCaskell, 217 AD2d 527, 528 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 848 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered March 31, 2003, as amended April 15, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s jury instructions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the charge as a whole was balanced and sufficiently conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards by which to evaluate the credibility of the police informant (see People v Inniss, 83 NY2d 653, 659 [1994]; People v McCaskell, 217 AD2d 527, 528 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 848 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 197, 808 N.Y.S.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramos-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack