People v. Rolling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rolling

227 A.D.2d 575, 643 N.Y.S.2d 375

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

DecidedMay 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 575 (People v. Rolling) 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. Rolling, 227 A.D.2d 575, 643 N.Y.S.2d 375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), rendered November 16, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he sold cocaine to an undercover police officer is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245; People v Williams, 187 AD2d 547). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Harvey, 175 AD2d 138). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). The undercover officer’s detailed testimony regarding the drug sale, including his identification of the defendant as the individual who sold him the drugs, and the police chemist’s testimony were sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction (see, People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578, citing People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 628). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), rendered November 16, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he sold cocaine to an undercover police officer is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245; People v Williams, 187 AD2d 547). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Harvey, 175 AD2d 138). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). The undercover officer’s detailed testimony regarding the drug sale, including his identification of the defendant as the individual who sold him the drugs, and the police chemist’s testimony were sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction (see, People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578, citing People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 628). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 575, 643 N.Y.S.2d 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rolling-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack