People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smith

15 A.D.3d 316, 789 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1940

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.3d 316 (People v. Smith) 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. Smith, 15 A.D.3d 316, 789 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 12, 2003, 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 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, [317]*317including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury, and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 12, 2003, 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 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, [317]*317including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury, and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sullivan, Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 316, 789 N.Y.S.2d 881, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack