People v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 29 June 1992 |
| Citation | 184 A.D.2d 795,585 N.Y.S.2d 505 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Miguel RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Adrienne Hale, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, (Jay M. Cohen, Carol Teague Schwartzkopf, Margaret E. Mainusch, and Temple Dickinson, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and MILLER, RITTER and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered May 9, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
On their direct case, the People were permitted to introduce evidence concerning the defendant's prior drug sale conviction. The court admitted this evidence on the theory that it was relevant to the defendant's intent to sell. However, since the defendant's intent was clearly inferable from his commission of the sale in plain view of the undercover officer, the evidence of the defendant's prior conviction was unnecessary to prove his intent (see, People v. Stevenson, 179 A.D.2d 832, 579 N.Y.S.2d 160). Moreover, this defendant, unlike his codefendant, did not raise an agency defense (cf., People v. Alers, 182 A.D.2d 822, 582 N.Y.S.2d 789). Thus, the prejudicial effects of this evidence outweighed its probative value, and the court erred in admitting it (see, People v. Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Stevenson, supra ). Under the circumstances, this error was not harmless (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787; People v. Stevenson, supra ). Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
In light of this determination, we need not address the defendant's remaining contentions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Aziziandavidi
...N.E.2d 164;see People v. Figueroa, 211 A.D.2d 811, 622 N.Y.S.2d 87;People v. Jones, 201 A.D.2d 505, 609 N.Y.S.2d 796;People v. Rodriguez, 184 A.D.2d 795, 585 N.Y.S.2d 505;People v. Stevenson, 179 A.D.2d 832, 579 N.Y.S.2d 160). The prosecutor's reference to such evidence during summation was......
- People v. Rivas
-
People v. Gonzalez
...third degree, was clearly inferable from his actions only minutes before he was arrested (see, Penal Law § 220.00[1]; People v. Rodriguez, 184 A.D.2d 795, 585 N.Y.S.2d 505; People v. Stevenson, 179 A.D.2d 832, 579 N.Y.S.2d 160). Moreover, the prior sale in issue, which occurred in April 198......
-
People v. Brown
...and it should not have been admitted (see, People v. Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; People v. Rodriguez, 184 A.D.2d 795, 585 N.Y.S.2d 505). However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins......