People v. Ramirez
| Decision Date | 01 December 1986 |
| Citation | 508 N.Y.S.2d 611,125 A.D.2d 343 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel RAMIREZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John E. Tardera and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Joseph J. Cassidy, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Nikki Kowalski and Peter S. Linden, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, RUBIN and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marano, J.), rendered July 13, 1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission into evidence of testimony that a large sum of money was recovered from him at the time of his arrest for a single sale of narcotics is without merit. The defendant made no objection to the initial testimony by a police officer that money was recovered from the defendant; therefore, the issue has thus not been preserved for appellate review. In addition, it was the defendant, on cross-examination of that same officer, who elicited testimony as to the amount of money recovered ($325), and thus, if the defendant suffered prejudice, it was caused by his own actions (cf. People v. Lizzarra, 70 A.D.2d 572, 417 N.Y.S.2d 69; People v. Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356, 404 N.Y.S.2d 865). Thus, the court properly denied the defense request for a "limiting" instruction.
Finally, the trial court did not err in denying defense counsel's request that the jury be permitted to view the scene of the crime (see, People v. Rao, 107 A.D.2d 720, 484 N.Y.S.2d 76).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Randolph
...was properly admitted as it is relevant to the crime charged (see, People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405, 525 N.Y.S.2d 689; People v. Ramirez, 125 A.D.2d 343, 508 N.Y.S.2d 611; cf., People v. Morales, 133 A.D.2d 90, 518 N.Y.S.2d 437; People v. Brown, 71 A.D.2d 918, 419 N.Y.S.2d The portion of the......
-
People v. Rudolph
...witnesses (see, People v. Rivers, 96 A.D.2d 874, 465 N.Y.S.2d 740) was not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Ramirez, 125 A.D.2d 343, 508 N.Y.S.2d 611, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 885, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 507 N.E.2d 1103) and, in any event, any error in this regard was harmless in ligh......
-
People v. Morales
...possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. At the trial, over the objection of defense counsel (cf., People v. Ramirez, 125 A.D.2d 343, 508 N.Y.S.2d 611, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 885), the People were permitted to elicit of a police officer that the defendant, when questioned by......
-
People v. Munoz
...to the introduction of the currency into evidence, and consequently, the defendant's claim of prejudice must fail (People v. Ramirez, 125 A.D.2d 343, 508 N.Y.S.2d 611). With respect to the alleged improprieties in the People's summation, a review of the record indicates that the People's su......