Opinion
April 26, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The credibility issues raised by defendant were properly placed before the jury, and after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the competing inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the jury's determination to credit the arresting officers' testimony rather than that of the defendant.
Contrary to defendant's contention, his request for a missing witness charge was properly denied since defendant failed to establish the existence of any of the prerequisites for this charge (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427-430).
Nor do we perceive error in the court's decision to allow the introduction of only inculpatory portions of defendant's grand jury testimony since the prosecutor was not obligated to introduce defendant's exculpatory statements because they were self-serving and not inextricably intertwined with the inculpatory statements (People v Mitchell, 82 N.Y.2d 509).
Further, the court's decision not to conduct the Sandoval hearing prior to jury selection does not provide grounds for reversal in this case since the essential purpose of the hearing was not frustrated by the court's ruling in the midst of the People's case (People v Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 662) and the defendant can identify no resulting prejudice.
Defendant's claim that the court erred by admitting the money seized from him is unpreserved as a matter of law (CPL 470.05), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. If we were to review the claim, we would find the evidence properly admitted as relevant to defendant's intent to sell and not unduly prejudicial (People v Donato, 176 A.D.2d 125, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1127).
Nor do we perceive any abuse of sentencing discretion (People v Delgado, 178 A.D.2d 275, affd 80 N.Y.2d 780).
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.