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. George PATNELLI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J., at hearing; Renee White, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered September 8, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility. There was overwhelming evidence of defendant's participation in the sale, including evidence that he screened the prospective purchaser, acted as a lookout and warned the codefendant of the presence of police officers at the designated meeting place, invited the undercover officer to make further purchases at “our spot”, and received part of the prerecorded buy money.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant, based on the ghost officer's observation of defendant in contact with the undercover officer, followed by the undercover officer's pre-arranged “positive buy” signal (People v. Ketcham, 93 N.Y.2d 416, 421-422, 690 N.Y.S.2d 874, 712 N.E.2d 1238; People v. Stokes, 271 A.D.2d 237, 708 N.Y.S.2d 54; see also, People v. Saverino, 270 A.D.2d 146, 708 N.Y.S.2d 606).
The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting the introduction by defendant of evidence of wind conditions (see, People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979, 674 N.Y.S.2d 271, 697 N.E.2d 172). The court properly received portions of the weather report having relevance to an issue raised by defendant at trial, and properly excluded other portions that lacked a sufficient temporal relationship to the incident.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 03, 2000
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)