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. Grady DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered October 30, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
We find nothing in the court's instructions to the jury on reasonable doubt that would exempt defendant's challenge from the requirement of preservation (People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 429 N.Y.S.2d 584, 407 N.E.2d 430), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to consider this claim, we would find, upon reviewing the totality of the court's instructions on the People's burden of proof and reasonable doubt, that the charge as a whole conveyed to the jury a correct statement of the law (see, People v. Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817, 523 N.Y.S.2d 433, 517 N.E.2d 1319).
The court's supplemental instructions to the jury were correct because the identity of the buyer is not a material element of the charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance (People v. Brown, 196 A.D.2d 428, 601 N.Y.S.2d 282, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 804, 604 N.Y.S.2d 940, 624 N.E.2d 1035). Defendant's further contention that he was prejudiced by the court's “constructive amendment” of the indictment with regard to the identity of the buyer is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no prejudice because the identity of the buyer was irrelevant to the defense asserted by defendant at trial.
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: January 05, 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)