People v. Wadsworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wadsworth

253 A.D.2d 899, 678 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9850

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 899 (People v. Wadsworth) 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. Wadsworth, 253 A.D.2d 899, 678 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered May 14, 1996, 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 challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury. However, where there has been a judgment of conviction based on legally sufficient trial evidence, the propriety of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of insufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence is not reviewable on appeal (see, CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Taylor, 225 AD2d 640; People v Almodovar, 216 AD2d 205; People v Alexander, 136 AD2d 332, 335-336; People v Robinson, 133 AD2d 473; People v Miller, 121 AD2d 477).

The court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the agency defense since there was no reasonable view of the evidence which warranted such a charge (see, People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780; People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub. nom Hahn-Diguiseppe v New York, 439 US 930; People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, cert denied 439 US 958).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Florin, 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 County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered May 14, 1996, 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 challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury. However, where there has been a judgment of conviction based on legally sufficient trial evidence, the propriety of the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of insufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence is not reviewable on appeal (see, CPL 210.30 [6]; People v Taylor, 225 AD2d 640; People v Almodovar, 216 AD2d 205; People v Alexander, 136 AD2d 332, 335-336; People v Robinson, 133 AD2d 473; People v Miller, 121 AD2d 477).

The court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to charge the jury on the agency defense since there was no reasonable view of the evidence which warranted such a charge (see, People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780; People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub. nom Hahn-Diguiseppe v New York, 439 US 930; People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, cert denied 439 US 958).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Florin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 899, 678 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wadsworth-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack