From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 7, 1991

Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.

Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence, including the police chemist's opinion that the substance seized was cocaine, was legally sufficient to support defendant's convictions (see, People v Harris, 130 A.D.2d 939, 940, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 647). The trial court properly permitted unindicted coconspirator DiGregorio to testify about defendant's threat against him because it was probative of defendant's consciousness of guilt (see, People v Reyes, 162 A.D.2d 357, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 896; People v Whaley, 144 A.D.2d 510, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 897). Defendant's contention that the court erred in its no inference charge (see, CPL 300.10) was not preserved for review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice because the charge given did not expressly convey to the jury that defendant should have testified (see, People v Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836, 839; People v Collins, 170 A.D.2d 1006). We have considered the remaining contentions raised by counsel and defendant pro se and find them lacking in merit.


Summaries of

People v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 7, 1991
174 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Frank

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARRY FRANK, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 7, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 1009 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 696

Citing Cases

People v. Sherk

The defenses presented by defendant and his codefendant were not in irreconcilable conflict so as to warrant…