From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wigfall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 15, 1990
161 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 15, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.).


Defendant was arrested when he was observed engaging in a drug transaction, exchanging vials of crack for money. Three police officers from a distance of 20 to 30 feet in a moving patrol car with an unobstructed view of the transaction through the vehicle's front windshield saw the exchange.

It is well settled that it is the jury's function to evaluate the credibility of witnesses (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490 ), and here it had a full opportunity to weigh the conflicting testimony (on both sides of the case). The conclusion of the jury, crediting the testimony of the officers, is supported by the record. The testimony establishes that the officers on a sunny day had a clear vantage point and were not too distant to make a clear observation. (See, People v Quevedo, 156 A.D.2d 265; People v. Deas, 156 A.D.2d 140.)

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Wigfall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 15, 1990
161 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Wigfall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLTON WIGFALL…

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

Date published: May 15, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 341

Citing Cases

People v. Raggs

Lastly, the defendant walking toward the Officer alone did not constitute flight from the police and does not…

People v. Conyers

We affirm. First, defendant's claim that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving his guilt…