People v. Sidberry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sidberry

109 A.D.2d 807, 486 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47311

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 807 (People v. Sidberry) 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. Sidberry, 109 A.D.2d 807, 486 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), both rendered June 16,1982, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

The errors with regard to the prosecutor’s summation were not properly preserved for review as no objection was raised at trial to the comments (People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554). The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was fair. The court considered defendant’s history and precluded examination as to three previous convictions, but permitted examination as to others which were close in time to the instant offense. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), both rendered June 16,1982, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

The errors with regard to the prosecutor’s summation were not properly preserved for review as no objection was raised at trial to the comments (People v Thompson, 97 AD2d 554). The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was fair. The court considered defendant’s history and precluded examination as to three previous convictions, but permitted examination as to others which were close in time to the instant offense. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 807, 486 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sidberry-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack