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, etc., Respondent, v. Javier RUIZ, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered August 24, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in allowing the People to inquire into the underlying facts of his prior conviction of robbery is without merit. Such inquiry would not demonstrate a propensity toward crimes involving narcotics, but rather would be highly probative of the defendant's willingness to place his own interests before those of society (see, People v. Fernandez, 229 A.D.2d 447, 644 N.Y.S.2d 795). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in refusing to give a circumstantial evidence charge also is without merit. Where, as here, a charge is supported by both circumstantial and direct evidence, the court need not so charge the jury (see, People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 599 N.Y.S.2d 530, 615 N.E.2d 1014).
The defendant's further contention that he was entitled to a missing-witness charge also is without merit. Even though the buyer of the cocaine pleaded guilty to the charge, the defendant did not make the requisite prima facie showing that the buyer would be expected to testify favorably to the People and that he was under their control (see, People v. Bryant, 194 A.D.2d 549, 550, 598 N.Y.S.2d 89).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: March 23, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)