People v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reed

201 A.D.2d 270, 608 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 807

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 270 (People v. Reed) 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. Reed, 201 A.D.2d 270, 608 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 25, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4Vz to 9 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contentions that the court erred in not allowing his witness to testify concerning his intent to purchase drugs and in not giving a circumstantial evidence charge are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event the [271]*271exclusion was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered March 25, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4Vz to 9 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contentions that the court erred in not allowing his witness to testify concerning his intent to purchase drugs and in not giving a circumstantial evidence charge are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event the [271]*271exclusion was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 270, 608 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reed-nyappdiv-1994.