People v. Stephens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stephens

189 A.D.2d 837, 592 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 837 (People v. Stephens) 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. Stephens, 189 A.D.2d 837, 592 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered April 2, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the packet of narcotics purchased by the undercover police officer was inadmissible at trial due to the People’s failure to establish an adequate chain of custody is without merit. It is well settled that "a chain of custody should be tested not by the satisfaction of a technical series of steps, but by whether the proof satisfies the rationale for requiring an evidentiary foundation” (People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 344). Here, we find that the undercover officer’s testimony, combined with that of the Police Department’s chemist, provided adequate assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the contraband (see, People v Wilson, 150 AD2d 628, 630; People v Donovan, 141 AD2d 835, 836-837). Accordingly, the gap in custody between the officer’s sealing of the vouchered narcotics envelope and the chemist’s receipt thereof shall not operate to bar its admission into evidence (see, People v Wilson, supra). Indeed, such deficiencies are properly resolved by the jury in its evaluation of the weight of the evidence (see, People v Julian, supra, at 344; People v Donovan, supra, at 837).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 248), or devoid of merit (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered April 2, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the packet of narcotics purchased by the undercover police officer was inadmissible at trial due to the People’s failure to establish an adequate chain of custody is without merit. It is well settled that "a chain of custody should be tested not by the satisfaction of a technical series of steps, but by whether the proof satisfies the rationale for requiring an evidentiary foundation” (People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 344). Here, we find that the undercover officer’s testimony, combined with that of the Police Department’s chemist, provided adequate assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the contraband (see, People v Wilson, 150 AD2d 628, 630; People v Donovan, 141 AD2d 835, 836-837). Accordingly, the gap in custody between the officer’s sealing of the vouchered narcotics envelope and the chemist’s receipt thereof shall not operate to bar its admission into evidence (see, People v Wilson, supra). Indeed, such deficiencies are properly resolved by the jury in its evaluation of the weight of the evidence (see, People v Julian, supra, at 344; People v Donovan, supra, at 837).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 248), or devoid of merit (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109; People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 837, 592 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stephens-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack