People v. Riles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Riles

262 A.D.2d 16, 690 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6139

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

DecidedJune 3, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 16 (People v. Riles) 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. Riles, 262 A.D.2d 16, 690 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered March 5, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evidence permitted a reasonable conclusion that defendant’s careful questioning of the undercover officer was part of the [17]*17drug selling operation and that defendant was not merely assisting a stranger in locating a supplier of drugs, but could have been a screener or steerer. Also, the jury was free to reject defendant’s agency defense which was properly charged without objection by defendant (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 73-76).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallaeh and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered March 5, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evidence permitted a reasonable conclusion that defendant’s careful questioning of the undercover officer was part of the [17]*17drug selling operation and that defendant was not merely assisting a stranger in locating a supplier of drugs, but could have been a screener or steerer. Also, the jury was free to reject defendant’s agency defense which was properly charged without objection by defendant (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 73-76).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallaeh and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 16, 690 N.Y.S.2d 582, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-riles-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack