People v. Semidey

• Decision Date: 06 October 1998
• Citation: 680 N.Y.S.2d 478,254 A.D.2d 57
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 8640 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rafael J. SEMIDEY, a/k/a Raphael Semiday, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 478

680 N.Y.S.2d 478

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 8640

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rafael J. SEMIDEY, a/k/a Raphael Semiday, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Oct. 6, 1998.

Vincent Rivellese, for Respondent.

Moira E. Casey, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and ELLERIN, WALLACH and WILLIAMS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered July 7, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 1/2 to 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in its Sandoval ruling where it limited inquiry to two out of fifteen prior convictions that directly bore on defendant's credibility. Defendant expressly waived any objection to the admission of uncharged crimes evidence and then utilized such evidence as a component of his own trial strategy. The court properly admitted a statement made by defendant to his accomplice, since no prior notice is required for statements made as part of the criminal transaction (see, People v. Clark, 198 A.D.2d 46, 47, 603 N.Y.S.2d 450, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 870, 613 N.Y.S.2d 131, 635 N.E.2d 300) or to persons who are not public servants (see, People v. Smith, 219 A.D.2d 533, 534, 631 N.Y.S.2d 683, lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 907, 641 N.Y.S.2d 237, 663 N.E.2d 1267). Background testimony regarding the mechanics of street level drug sales and the tactics used by drug dealers was properly admitted (People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248, 252, 606 N.Y.S.2d 621). The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were responsive to defendant's summation (see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 135, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 976, 672 N.Y.S.2d 855, 695 N.E.2d 724).