People v. Timmison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Timmison

256 A.D.2d 7, 680 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12783

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 7 (People v. Timmison) 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. Timmison, 256 A.D.2d 7, 680 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered March 12, 1996, 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 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the undercover officer’s testimony explaining “buy and bust” operations have not been preserved for appellate review by timely and specific objection (see, People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the testimony was properly admissible as background information and did not link defendant to a large scale drug operation (see, People v Ramos, 192 AD2d 324, lv denied 81 NY2d 1078).

Defendant’s challenge to the language employed by the court in conveying the reasonable doubt standard requires preservation (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; see also, People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge, read as a whole, conveyed the proper legal standards (People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered March 12, 1996, 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 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the undercover officer’s testimony explaining “buy and bust” operations have not been preserved for appellate review by timely and specific objection (see, People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the testimony was properly admissible as background information and did not link defendant to a large scale drug operation (see, People v Ramos, 192 AD2d 324, lv denied 81 NY2d 1078).

Defendant’s challenge to the language employed by the court in conveying the reasonable doubt standard requires preservation (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; see also, People v Robinson, 88 NY2d 1001), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge, read as a whole, conveyed the proper legal standards (People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 7, 680 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-timmison-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack