People v. Simeone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simeone

29 A.D.2d 650, 286 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4946

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 650 (People v. Simeone) 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. Simeone, 29 A.D.2d 650, 286 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4946 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered November 12, 1965, affirmed. In 1965 defendant was tried by a jury in Suffolk County upon an indictment the first count of which charged: “ Defendant on or about the 14th day of January, 1965, partly at Suffolk County, New York, and partly at Nassau County, New York, committed the crime of violations of the Public Health Law with regard to narcotic drugs, contrary to Penal Law, Section 1751, subdivision 1”; and the second count of which charged: “Defendant on or about the 14th day of January, 1965, partly at Suffolk County, New York, and partly at Nassau County, New York, committed the crime of violations as misdemeanors with respect to narcotic drugs, contrary to Penal Law, Section 1751-a, subdivision 1.” Sufficient evidence was given by the People to sustain defendant’s conviction upon both counts. Venue is an issue of fact for the jury’s determination and may be reasonably inferred by them from the evidence (People v. Hetenyi, 277 App. Div. 310, affd. 301 N. Y. 757; People v. Hetenyi, 304 N. Y. 80). We affirm the judgment because no exception was taken to the charge with respect to venue; and, upon the evidence contained in the record before us, the interests of justice do not require a new trial. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered November 12, 1965, affirmed. In 1965 defendant was tried by a jury in Suffolk County upon an indictment the first count of which charged: “ Defendant on or about the 14th day of January, 1965, partly at Suffolk County, New York, and partly at Nassau County, New York, committed the crime of violations of the Public Health Law with regard to narcotic drugs, contrary to Penal Law, Section 1751, subdivision 1”; and the second count of which charged: “Defendant on or about the 14th day of January, 1965, partly at Suffolk County, New York, and partly at Nassau County, New York, committed the crime of violations as misdemeanors with respect to narcotic drugs, contrary to Penal Law, Section 1751-a, subdivision 1.” Sufficient evidence was given by the People to sustain defendant’s conviction upon both counts. Venue is an issue of fact for the jury’s determination and may be reasonably inferred by them from the evidence (People v. Hetenyi, 277 App. Div. 310, affd. 301 N. Y. 757; People v. Hetenyi, 304 N. Y. 80). We affirm the judgment because no exception was taken to the charge with respect to venue; and, upon the evidence contained in the record before us, the interests of justice do not require a new trial. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 650, 286 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simeone-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack