People v. Cassidy

Decision Date03 February 2015
Citation998 N.Y.S.2d 880 (Mem),125 A.D.3d 412,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00803
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dashawn CASSIDY, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

125 A.D.3d 412
998 N.Y.S.2d 880 (Mem)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00803

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Dashawn CASSIDY, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 3, 2015.


Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ryan Gee of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered March 9, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 30 days, concurrent with 5 years' probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving carefully

125 A.D.3d 413

limited evidence that, before the drug transaction, the undercover officer was shown photographs of defendant and other persons he might see on the street. On its face, this evidence did not constitute evidence of uncharged crimes (see People v. Correa, 16 A.D.3d 355, 792 N.Y.S.2d 63 [1st Dept.2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 787, 801 N.Y.S.2d 808, 835 N.E.2d 668 [2005] ). In any event, even if

998 N.Y.S.2d 881

this testimony may have contained an implication of uncharged drug activity, it was more probative than prejudicial under the circumstances of the case. Evidence that defendant was already known to the police was necessary to enable the jury to understand how defendant came to be arrested two days later at his home, by an officer who did not witness the sale (see People v. Stevenson, 67 A.D.3d 605, 889 N.Y.S.2d 182 [1st Dept.2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 805, 899 N.Y.S.2d 140, 925 N.E.2d 944 [2010] ). This evidence was also probative of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT