From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bristow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 1984
106 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 17, 1984

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

Defendant's guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt inasmuch as the evidence established that defendant did not act solely as an agent of the buyer (see People v. McLeod, 45 N.Y.2d 95; People v. Tucker, 96 A.D.2d 893; People v. Gory, 30 A.D.2d 975). We also note that the trial court properly permitted the People to use defendant's uncharged drug sales on cross-examination of defendant and on rebuttal, inasmuch as such use was within the scope of defendant's direct testimony and was offered solely to prove defendant's intent to sell the drugs (see People v. Harris, 57 N.Y.2d 335, cert den 460 U.S. 1047; People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Jackson, 39 N.Y.2d 64). Defendant's remaining contention that there was an error of law in the trial court's agency charge is unpreserved for review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bristow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 1984
106 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Bristow

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JIMMY BRISTOW…

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

Date published: Dec 17, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Alvino

Whether evidence of prior crimes may be admitted under the Molineux rule is a question of law, not discretion…

People v. Velez

Also unpreserved for appellate review are the defendant's claims that the trial court erred in failing to…