From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Moody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 2002
300 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-01584

Submitted November 21, 2002.

December 16, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered February 13, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and resisting arrest, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Noreen Healey of counsel; Michael Wernke on the brief), for respondent.

Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted based upon evidence that he sold crack cocaine to an undercover police officer for $20 during a buy-and-bust operation. When the field team approached the defendant, he ran and the pursuing officers lost sight of him for "seconds" on two occasions. Immediately after his apprehension, the undercover police officer and her "ghost" identified the defendant as the seller.

The defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is without merit. Although no prerecorded money or drugs were recovered, those facts were before the trier of fact, which had ample opportunity to weigh the evidence and resolve issues of credibility (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84; People v. Borum, 293 A.D.2d 483, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 694). Viewing the evidence in the 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 (see CPL 470.15).

Further, the right to a public trial may be waived (see People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54), and was waived here when the defense counsel and the defendant expressly consented to closure of the courtroom during the undercover officer's testimony (see People v. Roque, 291 A.D.2d 417, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 680).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, O'BRIEN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Moody

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 2002
300 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Moody

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. DOUGLAS MOODY, appellant

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

Date published: Dec 16, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 542

Citing Cases

People v. Rosado

bender, 23 A.D.3d 493, 494, 805 N.Y.S.2d 597;People v. Pender, 221 A.D.2d 573, 633 N.Y.S.2d 830;People v.…

People v. Paige

However, the defendant waived this claim by explicitly consenting to the closure (see People v. Bens, 23…