From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1998
254 A.D.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 15, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.).


Limited expert testimony was permissible to explain the absence of buy money on defendant after the sale, since there was evidence upon which to infer the existence of possible accomplices ( compare, People v. Taylor, 247 A.D.2d 277, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 978, with People v. Colon, 238 A.D.2d 18, appeal dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 909).

The isolated comment by the prosecutor during summation concerning the reasons that the arresting officer did not search the individual standing in proximity to defendant could not have deprived defendant of a fair trial.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1998
254 A.D.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID SMITH, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 15, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 127 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 810

Citing Cases

People v. Johnson

Defendant's claim that the police officers were improperly allowed to testify about the role of the "money…

People v. Brown

There was sufficient indication that defendant may have acted with one or more accomplices in the drug…