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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 22, 2000·Published

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.

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

269 A.D.2d 548 (People v. Ruffin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related