People v. Viera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Viera

116 A.D.2d 609, 497 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51469

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Viera) 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. Viera, 116 A.D.2d 609, 497 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 12, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The People met their burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt including disproving defendant’s "agency” defense. Generally, an agency defense raises an issue of fact for the jury to determine whether defendant acted solely on behalf of the buyer without any personal motive in promoting the sale (see, e.g., People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196), defendant’s conduct evinced sufficient indicia of "[s]alesman-like behavior” (People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, 85) for the jury to determine that he was not acting on behalf of the undercover police buyer alone and had a personal interest in promoting the transaction (see, e.g., People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, 53-54).

We have examined the issues raised by defendant pro se and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 12, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The People met their burden of proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt including disproving defendant’s "agency” defense. Generally, an agency defense raises an issue of fact for the jury to determine whether defendant acted solely on behalf of the buyer without any personal motive in promoting the sale (see, e.g., People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196), defendant’s conduct evinced sufficient indicia of "[s]alesman-like behavior” (People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, 85) for the jury to determine that he was not acting on behalf of the undercover police buyer alone and had a personal interest in promoting the transaction (see, e.g., People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, 53-54).

We have examined the issues raised by defendant pro se and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 609, 497 N.Y.S.2d 471, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-viera-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack