TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. White

The People of the State of New York v. Sylvester White

People v. White, 172 A.D.2d 790 (1991)
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
April 22, 1991
Citations
172 A.D.2d 790

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 County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered March 14, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the jury’s verdict is repugnant is not preserved for appellate review since he failed to object to the verdict prior to the discharge of the jury (see, People v Stahl, 53 NY2d 1048 ; People v Almeida, 159 AD2d 508 ). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the verdict is not repugnant. Inasmuch as possession is not a necessary element of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), the jury’s acquittal of the defendant of the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) does not render infirm his conviction on the sale count (see, People v Basora, 151 AD2d 588 , affd 75 NY2d 992 ; People v Gaviria, 148 AD2d 630 ).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1995: 11999: 12000: 12001: 12015: 12019: 119952026peak 1995 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Cruz2019 NY Slip Op 7273
  2. People v. Gomcin265 A.D.2d 493 (1999)
  3. People v. Fraser134 A.D.3d 734 (2015)
  4. People v. Stovall273 A.D.2d 915 (2000)
  5. Baim v. Eidens279 A.D.2d 787 (2001)
  6. People v. Jones216 A.D.2d 585 (1995)

Most recent

  1. People v. Cruz2019 NY Slip Op 7273
  2. People v. Fraser134 A.D.3d 734 (2015)
  3. Baim v. Eidens279 A.D.2d 787 (2001)
  4. People v. Stovall273 A.D.2d 915 (2000)
  5. People v. Gomcin265 A.D.2d 493 (1999)
  6. People v. Jones216 A.D.2d 585 (1995)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Contes, 454 N.E.2d 932 (N.Y. 1983) 10,369
People v. Stahl, 425 N.E.2d 876 (N.Y. 1981) 116
People v. Basora, 556 N.E.2d 1070 (N.Y. 1990) 51
People v. Almeida, 159 A.D.2d 508 (1990) 15
People v. Basora, 151 A.D.2d 588 (1989) 5
People v. Gaviria, 148 A.D.2d 630 (1989) 2

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