People v. Williams

201 A.D.2d 519, 609 N.Y.S.2d 793
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 170 A.D.2d 629

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered June 18, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly concluded that there was a source for the in-court identification of the defendant by the undercover detective independent of a suggestive photographic identification (see, Gilbert v California, 388 US 263, 272; People v Lupo, 179 AD2d 683). Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Williams, 201 A.D.2d 519, 609 N.Y.S.2d 793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

201 A.D.2d 519 (People v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gilbert v. California
388 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Lupo
179 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)