People v. Roman

• Decision Date: 16 February 1993
• Citation: 190 A.D.2d 831,593 N.Y.S.2d 828
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edwin ROMAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 828

593 N.Y.S.2d 828

190 A.D.2d 831

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edwin ROMAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Feb. 16, 1993.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Mark W. Zeno, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Anthea H. Bruffee, Amy Griffin, and Karen A. Odom, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, PIZZUTO and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered January 4, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested for the sale and possession of heroin in a so-called "buy and bust" operation after he passed 15 glassine envelopes of heroin to another, who in turn sold one to an undercover police officer.

The defendant's contentions that the court's instructions to the jury constituted reversible error by shifting or lessening the burden of proof and coercing the jury to agree on a particular verdict were not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, these contentions lack merit. The charge, when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the proper standards (see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 523 N.Y.S.2d 433, 517 N.E.2d 1319; People v. Jones, 173 A.D.2d 487, 570 N.Y.S.2d 297). Additionally, the instructions given did not attempt to "coerce or compel the jury to agree upon a particular verdict, or any verdict" (People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 259, 92 N.E. 674). Rather, the instructions concerned that part of the court's charge dealing with the jury's duty to engage in deliberations with an open mind (see, People v. Ali, 47 N.Y.2d 920, 419 N.Y.S.2d 487, 393 N.E.2d 481).

Nor was the court's Sandoval ruling erroneous. The Court may permit inquiry into prior similar offenses without improvidently exercising its discretion (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614; People v. Hendrix, 44 N.Y.2d 658, 405 N.Y.S.2d 31, 376 N.E.2d 192). Although the defendant had three prior convictions involving criminal sale or possession of a controlled substance, the court limited inquiry on cross-examination to one conviction for criminal sale of a...