From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 10, 1998
255 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 10, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J., at hearing; Edwin Torres, J., at jury trial and sentence).


Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. We see no reason to disturb the court's credibility determinations. Since the officer observed defendant having a conversation with an unidentified woman in an area the officer characterized as a drug-prone location, then observed the woman start to hand defendant money in exchange for several small bags, which the officer, based on his extensive law enforcement experience, believed to be the type used to package crack cocaine, the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant ( see, People v. Jones, 90 N.Y.2d 835). Defendant's statements given after he received Miranda warnings were not the result of a single, continuous chain of events beginning with improper questioning in the absence of Miranda warnings ( People v. Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115) because there was a "definite, pronounced break in the interrogation".

The evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Under the circumstances presented, including defendant's conduct indicative of selling, and his possession of a substantial amount of cocaine, the evidence was clearly sufficient to establish his intent to sell ( People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v. Turner, 228 A.D.2d 331, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 996).

The comments of the prosecutor during summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial since they constituted proper inferences to be drawn from the testimony at trial and proper responses to the summation of defense counsel ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105).

Defendant's request for a missing witness charge was properly denied as untimely and on the basis of his failure to meet his burden of demonstrating that the proposed witness could provide anything other than cumulative testimony ( People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v. Rivera, 249 A.D.2d 141).

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining contentions.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 10, 1998
255 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JERRY WILLIAMS…

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

Date published: Nov 10, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 614

Citing Cases

People v. Hartman

(See, People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408 [1984] [reviewing court must be supplied with sufficient evidence to make…

People v. Hartman

In contrast to McRay and its progeny, two very critical factors relied upon by the courts in assessing the…