From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Matos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1993
190 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 16, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). A reasonable trier of fact could have readily determined that the defendant possessed the requisite mental intent and intentionally aided and importuned the prosecution's witness in the sale of 2.98 ounces of cocaine to the police (see, People v Kaplan, 76 N.Y.2d 140; People v Nieves, 135 A.D.2d 579).

The court properly admitted testimony concerning prior drug transactions between the prosecution's witness and the defendant for purposes other than to prove criminal propensity, and the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241; People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Matos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1993
190 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Matos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL MATOS, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 16, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
594 N.Y.S.2d 45

Citing Cases

People v. Carson

Defendant contends that County Court erred in allowing a prosecution witness to testify regarding a prior…