Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered September 26, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 years to life, 8 to 16 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence from which the jury could have inferred defendant's knowing possession of the various contraband (see, People v. Bundy, 90 N.Y.2d 918, 663 N.Y.S.2d 837, 686 N.E.2d 496).
By failing to request further relief after the court's curative action, defendant failed to preserve his current challenge to the prosecutor's summation comment concerning threats, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice to defendant (see, People v. Ferguson, 82 N.Y.2d 837, 606 N.Y.S.2d 145, 626 N.E.2d 930). Defendant's remaining challenges to the prosecutor's summation, and to the court's charge, none of which are exempt from the requirement of preservation (see, People v. Agramonte, 87 N.Y.2d 765, 769-770, 642 N.Y.S.2d 594, 665 N.E.2d 164), are unpreserved and we decline to review any of them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that they would not warrant reversal.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 18, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)