From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hendrix [4th Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 29, 2000
270 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

March 29, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.

PRESENT: PINE, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16) based upon his sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer. We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in refusing to admit in evidence a report prepared by a surveillance officer purporting to contain the undercover officer's account of the transaction. Inconsistencies between the undercover officer's testimony and the surveillance officer's report were placed before the jury by defense counsel's cross-examination of the undercover officer ( see, People v. Piazza, 48 N.Y.2d 151, 165; People v. Moore, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided Dec. 30, 1999]).


Summaries of

People v. Hendrix [4th Dept 2000

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 29, 2000
270 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Hendrix [4th Dept 2000

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES HENDRIX…

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

Date published: Mar 29, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 958 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 304

Citing Cases

Peppard v. Fischer

On direct appeal, the Appellate Division held, the court properly refused to admit in evidence a written…

People v. Peppard

bathtub "naked" on the ground that the CPL 710.30 notice mentioned only that defendant admitted that he took…