People v. Woody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woody

9 A.D.3d 439, 780 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9852

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

DecidedJuly 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 439 (People v. Woody) 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. Woody, 9 A.D.3d 439, 780 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered December 18, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from detectives and a confidential informant that they knew the defendant for several years prior to his arrest, thereby creating an inference that the defendant was a drug dealer. This contention is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the testimony he now challenges (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Griffin, 246 AD2d 668, 669 [1998]). In any event, this testimony did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, since it “ did not suggest to the jury that [the] defendant had engaged in prior misconduct, or had prior contact with law enforcement’ ” (People v Gomez, 253 [440]*440AD2d 719 [1998], quoting People v Greeman, 235 AD2d 281, 282 [1997]).

As the defendant failed to object to the portions of the prosecutor’s summation which he challenges on appeal, his present contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ravenell, 307 AD2d 977, 978 [2003]; People v Brown, 297 AD2d 819 [2002]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments either were fair responses to the defense counsel’s summation comments (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Salaman, 231 AD2d 464, 465 [1996]), or were “fair comment on the evidence” (People v Campbell, 271 AD2d 693 [2000]; see People v Lamour, 203 AD2d 388 [1994]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Rivera, 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, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered December 18, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from detectives and a confidential informant that they knew the defendant for several years prior to his arrest, thereby creating an inference that the defendant was a drug dealer. This contention is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the testimony he now challenges (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Griffin, 246 AD2d 668, 669 [1998]). In any event, this testimony did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, since it “ did not suggest to the jury that [the] defendant had engaged in prior misconduct, or had prior contact with law enforcement’ ” (People v Gomez, 253 [440]*440AD2d 719 [1998], quoting People v Greeman, 235 AD2d 281, 282 [1997]).

As the defendant failed to object to the portions of the prosecutor’s summation which he challenges on appeal, his present contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ravenell, 307 AD2d 977, 978 [2003]; People v Brown, 297 AD2d 819 [2002]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments either were fair responses to the defense counsel’s summation comments (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Salaman, 231 AD2d 464, 465 [1996]), or were “fair comment on the evidence” (People v Campbell, 271 AD2d 693 [2000]; see People v Lamour, 203 AD2d 388 [1994]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 439, 780 N.Y.S.2d 168, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woody-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack