People v. Rivera-Lugo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rivera-Lugo

202 A.D.2d 333, 609 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2825

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 333 (People v. Rivera-Lugo) 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. Rivera-Lugo, 202 A.D.2d 333, 609 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered March 11, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of YVz to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the eyewitness testimony that defendant exchanged drugs for money and was arrested with four glassines of heroin in his possession was sufficient as a matter of law to prove that defendant possessed the heroin with the intent to sell it. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).

We have reviewed defendant’s arguments that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial and find that the comments in question were a fair response to the defense’s [334]*334summation (People v Emphram, 179 AD2d 402, 403, lv denied 79 NY2d 947). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch 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 (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered March 11, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of YVz to 9 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the eyewitness testimony that defendant exchanged drugs for money and was arrested with four glassines of heroin in his possession was sufficient as a matter of law to prove that defendant possessed the heroin with the intent to sell it. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).

We have reviewed defendant’s arguments that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial and find that the comments in question were a fair response to the defense’s [334]*334summation (People v Emphram, 179 AD2d 402, 403, lv denied 79 NY2d 947). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 333, 609 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rivera-lugo-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack