People v. Sproul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sproul

254 A.D.2d 151, 679 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11009

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 151 (People v. Sproul) 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. Sproul, 254 A.D.2d 151, 679 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered January 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The jury’s verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence of defendant’s intentional participation in the sale, including evidence that defendant directed the seller to provide the undercover officer with drugs, and waited and watched as the exchange took place.

Background testimony regarding the mechanics of street [152]*152level drug transactions and the methods used by drug dealers was properly admitted (People v Kelsey, 194 AD2d 248). The portions of the prosecutor’s summation challenged by defendant were properly responsive to defendant’s summation (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). The court properly exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling where it limited inquiry to two prior convictions that directly bore on defendant’s credibility and precluded any inquiry into several misdemeanors.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, 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 (Ira Beal, J.), rendered January 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The jury’s verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence of defendant’s intentional participation in the sale, including evidence that defendant directed the seller to provide the undercover officer with drugs, and waited and watched as the exchange took place.

Background testimony regarding the mechanics of street [152]*152level drug transactions and the methods used by drug dealers was properly admitted (People v Kelsey, 194 AD2d 248). The portions of the prosecutor’s summation challenged by defendant were properly responsive to defendant’s summation (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). The court properly exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling where it limited inquiry to two prior convictions that directly bore on defendant’s credibility and precluded any inquiry into several misdemeanors.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 151, 679 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sproul-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack