From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

October 9, 2001.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered January 26, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Barbara Jane Hutter, for respondent.

Jeffrey I. Richman, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli, JJ.


The jury's verdict was based on sufficient evidence. "The drug sale was established beyond a reasonable doubt by testimony that defendant sold a small unknown object that the buyer took hold of but discarded seconds later upon arrival of the arresting officer, and which turned out to be a small plastic bag containing cocaine. In this short time interval, the buyer could not have disposed of the object [he] purchased from defendant and bought drugs from someone else." (People v. Starks, 216 A.D.2d 120,affd 88 N.Y.2d 818). Contrary to defendant's argument, the facts in the instant case are indistinguishable from those in Starks.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 9, 2001
287 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Parker

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD PARKER…

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

Date published: Oct 9, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 17

Citing Cases

People v. Montcrieft

A postarrest search of defendant's person revealed $342 in cash. We conclude that, viewed in a light most…

People v. Bolden

The verdict was based upon sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. This Court has…