People v. Ruffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruffin

269 A.D.2d 548, 704 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1921

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 548 (People v. Ruffin) 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. Ruffin, 269 A.D.2d 548, 704 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Tomlinson, 199 AD2d 352). The evidence allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant acted in concert with the accomplice (see, People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual [549]*549review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Schmidt, 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, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Tomlinson, 199 AD2d 352). The evidence allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant acted in concert with the accomplice (see, People v Rossey, 89 NY2d 970). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual [549]*549review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 548, 704 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruffin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack