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. Alejandro LUCIANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered April 16, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Issues of credibility were properly presented to the trier of fact and we find no reason to disturb its determinations.
Defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror was properly denied since the juror, an FBI agent who had expressed a generally favorable opinion of the truthfulness of police witnesses, unequivocally affirmed that he could serve as an impartial juror (see, People v. Torpey, 63 N.Y.2d 361, 482 N.Y.S.2d 448, 472 N.E.2d 298).
The officer's testimony that he observed defendant engage in a drug transaction with an unidentified individual immediately after the charged sale was properly admitted (see, People v. Lilly, 264 A.D.2d 684, 696 N.Y.S.2d 423), and the court gave an appropriate limiting instruction. The officer's testimony concerning his observations of defendant prior to the charged sale did not constitute evidence of uncharged crimes and no limiting instructions were necessary. Defendant's related challenge to the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the prosecutor's remark does not warrant reversal.
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: April 06, 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)