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. Jose LABOY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.), rendered January 17, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession 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. We see no reason to disturb the credibility determinations of the jury. As this Court has repeatedly held, contrary to defendant's “masked repugnancy” argument (see, People v. Downing, 225 A.D.2d 391, 640 N.Y.S.2d 746, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 965, 647 N.Y.S.2d 719, 670 N.E.2d 1351), an acquittal on a sale count does not necessarily undermine the sufficiency or weight of the evidence supporting a conviction on a possession with intent to sell count (see, People v. Vaughn, 242 A.D.2d 458, 662 N.Y.S.2d 113, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 837, 667 N.Y.S.2d 691, 690 N.E.2d 500). Contrary to defendant's argument, the principle of collateral estoppel is inapplicable to verdicts reached in a single trial (United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 58, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461; Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 500 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 81 L.Ed.2d 425).
The court's charge on intent, viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper standards (see, People v. Fraser, 181 A.D.2d 425, 426, 580 N.Y.S.2d 751, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 1000, 584 N.Y.S.2d 455, 594 N.E.2d 949).
Defendant's challenges to the court's credibility and reasonable doubt charges are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that those charges adequately conveyed the appropriate principles.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
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: October 08, 1998
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)