People v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 13 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | 6732. |
| Citation | 22 A.D.3d 311,804 N.Y.S.2d 288,2005 NY Slip Op 07583 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RYNELL HENDERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was extensive proof of defendant's accessorial liability, including evidence supporting the conclusion that defendant passed an unidentified object to a second man, and that this object was the packet of drugs that the second man immediately sold to an undercover officer.
The court properly permitted the undercover officers to identify themselves by their shield numbers. The showing made by the People at a Hinton hearing that resulted in closure of the courtroom also satisfied the People's burden under People v. Waver (3 NY3d 748 [2004]) of establishing a need for anonymity of the testifying undercover officer (see also People v. Stanard, 42 NY2d 74 [1977], cert denied 434 US 986 [1977]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting one of the officers to testify as an expert concerning the roles played by various participants in street-level drug transactions, since this testimony was relevant to the central issue of whether defendant acted in concert with the other man, and since it did not carry any suggestion of large-scale drug activity (see People v. Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 506-507 [2002]). The court provided appropriate limiting instructions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Custodro, 2009 NY Slip Op 32437(U) (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 10/22/2009)
...[1991] (codefendant handed buyers pink envelopes in exchange for money which was in turn passed to defendant); see also People v. Henderson, 22 A.D.3d 311 [1st Dept. 2005], lv. denied, 6 N.Y.3d 813 [2006] (defendant passed an unidentified object to a second man, and that object was the pack......
-
People v. Wilkerson
...also met their burden of establishing a need for the undercover officer to testify under his shield number ( see People v. Henderson, 22 A.D.3d 311, 312, 804 N.Y.S.2d 288 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 813, 812 N.Y.S.2d 453, 845 N.E.2d 1284 [2006] ). Defendant failed to establish that he was p......
-
People v. Jamison
...claim that, rather than acting as a steerer and/or lookout, he was a mere bystander to the transaction ( see People v. Henderson, 22 A.D.3d 311, 804 N.Y.S.2d 288 [2005],lv. denied6 N.Y.3d 813, 812 N.Y.S.2d 453, 845 N.E.2d 1284 [2006];People v. Broadhurst, 306 A.D.2d 15, 16, 761 N.Y.S.2d 167......
- Tocker v. City of New York