People v. Ramirez
| Decision Date | 16 September 2010 |
| Citation | 909 N.Y.S.2d 1,15 N.Y.3d 824,935 N.E.2d 791 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE & c., Respondent, v. Timoteo RAMIREZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
15 N.Y.3d 824
935 N.E.2d 791
The PEOPLE & c., Respondent,
v.
Timoteo RAMIREZ, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Sept. 16, 2010.
Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP, Ithaca (Diane V. Bruns of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Grace Vee of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's argument, the Appellate Division properly concluded that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and drug paraphernalia located in an apartment in which defendant himself was found ( see generally People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983] ).
Moreover, although the record is silent as to whether Supreme Court showed the jury note to counsel as required in
People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 (1991), defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court's response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured. Accordingly, defendant's claim is unpreserved for review ( see People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 516, 626 N.Y.S.2d 729, 650 N.E.2d 387 [1995]; see also People v. Kadarko, 14 N.Y.3d 426, 429-430, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828, 928 N.E.2d 1025 [2010] ).Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morrison
...mode of proceedings error where "the court read the note into the record almost verbatim" (emphasis added) ], affd 15 N.Y.3d 824, 825–826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 [2010] ; People v. Neal, 268 A.D.2d 307, 307, 701 N.Y.S.2d 393 [1st Dept. 2000] [no mode of proceedings error even though......
-
People v. Brown
...of the court's intended response” (People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 516, 626 N.Y.S.2d 729, 650 N.E.2d 387 ; see People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d 824, 825, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 ). However, while the record shows that a discussion was held off the record at the sidebar immediately bef......
-
People v. Smart
...We thus conclude that defendant was required to preserve his contentions for our review, but he failed to do so ( see People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d 824, 825–826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791;People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 516, 626 N.Y.S.2d 729, 650 N.E.2d 387;People v. Rivera, 83 A.D.3......
-
People v. LaDuke
...and failed to object at that time,” there is no mode of proceedings error and the claim is unpreserved for our review (People v. Ramirez, 15 N.Y.3d 824, 826, 909 N.Y.S.2d 1, 935 N.E.2d 791 [2010] ; see People v. Alcide, 21 N.Y.3d at 694, 976 N.Y.S.2d 432, 998 N.E.2d 1056 ). That said, in th......