TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. McCutcheon

The People of the State of New York v. Gregory McCutcheon

People v. McCutcheon, 122 A.D.2d 169 (1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 14, 1986
Citations
122 A.D.2d 169504 N.Y.S.2d 7081986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59501

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jaspan, J.), rendered March 15, 1982, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant was charged with selling cocaine to an undercover police officer on two separate occasions. The defendant raises for the first time on appeal the argument that the cocaine packets should not have been admitted into evidence because the People failed to establish an unbroken chain of possession of the evidence. The testimony which was elicited provides a reasonable assurance that the packets analyzed at the police laboratory were the same packets purchased from the defendant and that there had been no tampering. The drugs were at all times under police control. Therefore admission of the packets into evidence was proper (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340 ; People v Piazza, 121 AD2d 573 ).

The defendant claims that the court’s ruling on his Sandoval motion which permitted the prosecutor to inquire into his two previous robbery convictions deprived him of a fair trial. We find no merit in this contention as robbery is an act of individual dishonesty which usually is relevant to credibility (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 ).

Given the defendant’s status as a second felony offender, we find that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or an abuse of discretion. We have considered the defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel and find it to be without merit (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 ). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Spatt, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1988: 41990: 12009: 119882026peak 1988 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thomas v. Astrue674 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
  2. People v. Donovan141 A.D.2d 835 (1988)
  3. People v. Sarmiento168 A.D.2d 328 (1990) · Dissent
  4. People v. Flores138 A.D.2d 512 (1988)
  5. People v. Mayas137 A.D.2d 836 (1988)
  6. People v. Streeter139 A.D.2d 786 (1988)

Most recent

  1. Thomas v. Astrue674 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
  2. People v. Sarmiento168 A.D.2d 328 (1990) · Dissent
  3. People v. Donovan141 A.D.2d 835 (1988)
  4. People v. Streeter139 A.D.2d 786 (1988)
  5. People v. Flores138 A.D.2d 512 (1988)
  6. People v. Mayas137 A.D.2d 836 (1988)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Baldi, 429 N.E.2d 400 (N.Y. 1981) 5,129
People v. Sandoval, 314 N.E.2d 413 (N.Y. 1974) 1,742
People v. Piazza, 121 A.D.2d 573 (1986) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list