People v. Rohadfox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rohadfox

292 A.D.2d 861, 738 N.Y.S.2d 795

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 861 (People v. Rohadfox) 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. Rohadfox, 292 A.D.2d 861, 738 N.Y.S.2d 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brunetti, J.), entered May 28, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from he and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence with respect to his intent to sell. That contention is unpreserved for our review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19) and in any event is lacking in merit. At the time of his arrest, defendant told a police officer that he intended to [862]*862give the crack cocaine to someone to whom he “owed $10.00.” “The legal definition of ‘sell’ includes the common definition of ‘sell,’ and encompasses additional conduct, such as ‘exchanging’ or ‘giving,’ that does not fall within the common definition” (People v Hardy, 241 AD2d 919, 919). Here, the exchange of drugs for value is encompassed within the legal definition of “sell.” Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brunetti, J.), entered May 28, 1999, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from he and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence with respect to his intent to sell. That contention is unpreserved for our review (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19) and in any event is lacking in merit. At the time of his arrest, defendant told a police officer that he intended to [862]*862give the crack cocaine to someone to whom he “owed $10.00.” “The legal definition of ‘sell’ includes the common definition of ‘sell,’ and encompasses additional conduct, such as ‘exchanging’ or ‘giving,’ that does not fall within the common definition” (People v Hardy, 241 AD2d 919, 919). Here, the exchange of drugs for value is encompassed within the legal definition of “sell.” Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 861, 738 N.Y.S.2d 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rohadfox-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack