People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 26 April 1994 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kevin JONES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), rendered October 30, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 to 18 years, 8 to 16 years, and 6 months, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 932, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). The credibility issues raised by defendant were properly placed before the jury, and after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the competing inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the jury's determination to credit the arresting officers' testimony rather than that of the defendant.
Contrary to defendant's contention, his request for a missing witness charge was properly denied since defendant failed to establish the existence of any of the prerequisites for this charge (see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427-430, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583).
Nor do we perceive error in the court's decision to allow the introduction of only inculpatory portions of defendant's grand jury testimony since the prosecutor was not obligated to introduce defendant's exculpatory statements because they were self-serving and not inextricably intertwined with the inculpatory statements (People v. Mitchell, 82 N.Y.2d 509, 605 N.Y.S.2d 655, 626 N.E.2d 630).
Further, the court's decision not to conduct the Sandoval hearing prior to jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wray
...the timing of the hearing is unpersuasive (see, People v. Gonzalez, 214 A.D.2d 451, 625 N.Y.S.2d 203 [1st Dept., 1995]; People v. Jones, 203 A.D.2d 183, 612 N.Y.S.2d 849). The defendant argues, inter alia, that at the Wade hearing, one of the prosecution's witnesses was unable to identify h......
-
People v. Harris
...nor were they necessary to place the latter in context to avoid creating a false impression with the jury (see, People v. Jones, 203 A.D.2d 183, 184, 612 N.Y.S.2d 849, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 148, 641 N.E.2d 169; compare, People v. Isla, 96 A.D.2d 789, 466 N.Y.S.2d 16). Conse......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...the circumstances here presented, suffered no prejudice warranting reversal and thus, we deem the error harmless (see, People v. Jones, 203 A.D.2d 183, 612 N.Y.S.2d 849, appeal denied 84 N.Y.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 148, 641 N.E.2d ...
- Baez v. New York City Housing Authority