Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. CARSON

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.
Feb 11, 2004
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09). Defendant was acquitted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1] [possession with intent to sell]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in allowing a prosecution witness to testify regarding a prior drug sale. We disagree. That testimony was properly admitted to establish that defendant possessed cocaine with the intent to sell it ( see People v. Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245-246; People v. Maddox, 272 A.D.2d 884, 884-885, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 867; People v. Moody, 229 A.D.2d 936, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 926). The probative value of that testimony outweighed any prejudice to defendant ( see Maddox, 272 A.D.2d at 885; Moody, 229 A.D.2d at 937; People v. Matos, 190 A.D.2d 819, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 973), and "any prejudice to defendant was minimized by [the court's] limiting instructions" ( Maddox, 272 A.D.2d at 885; see People v. Dais, 222 A.D.2d 1045, 1046, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 890). The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v. Miley, 306 A.D.2d 164, 165, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 623; People v. Rodriguez, 259 A.D.2d 571), and the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.