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. Eric CROWDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered March 11, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4 1/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's midtrial and postverdict motions to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it was allegedly based on perjured testimony. While one of the People's grand jury witnesses gave incorrect testimony about the recovery of drugs from defendant's person, defendant has not established that this testimony was perjurious, as opposed to being honestly mistaken. In any event, there was no impairment of the integrity of the grand jury proceeding to warrant dismissal (see CPL 210.35[5]; People v. Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449, 455, 554 N.Y.S.2d 426, 553 N.E.2d 974 [1990] ). Rather than being based entirely on false testimony (compare People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97, 476 N.Y.S.2d 79, 464 N.E.2d 447 [1984] ), the indictment was supported by ample competent evidence (see People v. Davis, 256 A.D.2d 200, 201, 683 N.Y.S.2d 502 [1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 898, 689 N.Y.S.2d 710, 711 N.E.2d 986 [1999]; see also People v. Crawford, 277 A.D.2d 44, 715 N.Y.S.2d 842 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 799, 726 N.Y.S.2d 376, 750 N.E.2d 78 [2001] ).
For the reasons stated in our decision in People v. Lemos, 34 A.D.3d 343, 824 N.Y.S.2d 289 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 924, 834 N.Y.S.2d 514, 866 N.E.2d 460 [2007], we find unpreserved defendant's argument that the court unlawfully imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees when it did so only in writing, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit.
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 04, 2007
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)