People v. Wigfall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wigfall

161 A.D.2d 413, 555 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379

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

DecidedMay 15, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 413 (People v. Wigfall) 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. Wigfall, 161 A.D.2d 413, 555 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered December 5, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested when he was observed engaging in a drug transaction, exchanging vials of crack for money. Three police officers from a distance of 20 to 30 feet in a moving patrol car with an unobstructed view of the transaction through the vehicle’s front windshield saw the exchange.

It is well settled that it is the jury’s function to evaluate the credibility of witnesses (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [414]*414[1987]), and here it had a full opportunity to weigh the conflicting testimony (on both sides of the case). The conclusion of the jury, crediting the testimony of the officers, is supported by the record. The testimony establishes that the officers on a sunny day had a clear vantage point and were not too distant to make a clear observation. (See, People v Quevedo, 156 AD2d 265; People v Deas, 156 AD2d 140.) Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered December 5, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested when he was observed engaging in a drug transaction, exchanging vials of crack for money. Three police officers from a distance of 20 to 30 feet in a moving patrol car with an unobstructed view of the transaction through the vehicle’s front windshield saw the exchange.

It is well settled that it is the jury’s function to evaluate the credibility of witnesses (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [414]*414[1987]), and here it had a full opportunity to weigh the conflicting testimony (on both sides of the case). The conclusion of the jury, crediting the testimony of the officers, is supported by the record. The testimony establishes that the officers on a sunny day had a clear vantage point and were not too distant to make a clear observation. (See, People v Quevedo, 156 AD2d 265; People v Deas, 156 AD2d 140.) Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 413, 555 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wigfall-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack