People v. Salaman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salaman

239 A.D.2d 158, 657 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4893

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 6, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 3, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Any minor discrepancies in the testimony by the People’s witnesses were properly placed before the jury and we see no basis to disturb its findings.

The trial court properly closed the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony in view of his ongoing activities at the precise location of the sale in question and his open cases (see, People v Ford, 235 AD2d 285).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 3, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Any minor discrepancies in the testimony by the People’s witnesses were properly placed before the jury and we see no basis to disturb its findings.

The trial court properly closed the courtroom during the undercover officer’s testimony in view of his ongoing activities at the precise location of the sale in question and his open cases (see, People v Ford, 235 AD2d 285).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

People v. Salaman, 239 A.D.2d 158, 657 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

239 A.D.2d 158 (People v. Salaman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related