People v. Wager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wager

255 A.D.2d 136, 679 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11727

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 136 (People v. Wager) 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. Wager, 255 A.D.2d 136, 679 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered February 9, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Even if the court, in these circumstances, should not have permitted expert testimony relating to the issue of defendant’s intent to sell, such ruling was harmless because there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted him. Defendant, was observed showing glassines to a woman who did not purchase them because she was interested in buying “works”, and defendant possessed over 20 glassines of two different “brands” of heroin separately packaged, which constituted strong evidence that he possessed the drugs with intent to sell (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245).

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 these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered February 9, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Even if the court, in these circumstances, should not have permitted expert testimony relating to the issue of defendant’s intent to sell, such ruling was harmless because there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted him. Defendant, was observed showing glassines to a woman who did not purchase them because she was interested in buying “works”, and defendant possessed over 20 glassines of two different “brands” of heroin separately packaged, which constituted strong evidence that he possessed the drugs with intent to sell (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245).

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 these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 136, 679 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wager-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack