People v. Baldwin
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Gary (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered December 10, 1997, 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.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), 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]).
The defendant’s contention that the court failed to fully respond to the jury’s request for a readback of certain testimony is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McCall, 88 NY2d 838, 840; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818, 819). In any event, the court responded meaningfully to the jury’s request for a readback of part of the identifying undercover officer’s testimony (see, CPL 310.30; People v Lourido, 70 NY2d 428; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302, cert denied 459 US 847).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), without merit, or do not require reversal. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, S. Miller and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.