People v. Monroe
| Decision Date | 29 September 1992 |
| Citation | 588 N.Y.S.2d 547,186 A.D.2d 93 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Earl MONROE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before CARRO, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, ROSS and ASCH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J., at trial; Brenda S. Soloff, J., on motion to dismiss the indictment), rendered November 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them 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 both possessory counts. Defendant's possession of 92 jumbo-sized vials of cocaine was sufficient to establish that he intended to sell them (People v. Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808). 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 issue raised concerning the credibility of the police witnesses was properly placed before the jury and we find no reason to disturb its determination.
The narcotics recovered at the scene was properly admitted into evidence, as the arresting officer's testimony alone was sufficient to establish the necessary chain of custody (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610, 360 N.E.2d 1310). We also find that the motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied, as defendant alleged insufficient grounds to demonstrate that the integrity of the proceeding had been impaired, and the circumstances surrounding his Grand Jury appearance did not deprive him of a meaningful opportunity to testify.
The trial court did not err in failing to discharge a sworn juror before testimony began, since it was immediately apparent that the juror's concern was based on a misapprehension that the crime had occurred in her neighborhood. No further inquiry was necessary, and the juror was not "grossly unqualified" to serve (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stanaway
... ... Ellis, 188 A.D.2d 1043, 592 N.Y.S.2d 200 (1992) (in camera review of the prosecutor's file revealed Brady violations); People v. Monroe, 186 A.D.2d 93, 588 N.Y.S.2d 547 (1992) (in camera review of personnel files for information that is relevant to impeachment of witness credibility); People v. Gallardo, 173 A.D.2d 636, 570 N.Y.S.2d 222 (1991) (defendant is entitled to in camera inspection of the prosecutor's notes if he can ... ...
-
People v. Murray
...People v. Perez, 44 A.D.3d 417, 417, 843 N.Y.S.2d 67 ; People v. Contreras, 192 A.D.2d 417, 417, 596 N.Y.S.2d 393 ; People v. Monroe, 186 A.D.2d 93, 94, 588 N.Y.S.2d 547 ). Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's argument, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evide......
-
People v. King
...239, 574 N.Y.S.2d 205) and that the defendant possessed the cocaine with intent to sell (see, Penal Law § 220.16; People v. Monroe, 186 A.D.2d 93, 588 N.Y.S.2d 547; People v. Vailes, 150 A.D.2d 406, 540 N.Y.S.2d 836). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied......
- People v. Glover