People v. Carter
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- People v. Broderick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Keating (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Raphael (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Alisuarez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Cabassa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Molina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Trowell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Hogue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
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
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lopresto, J.), rendered August 12, 2013, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of selling oxycodone pills to his codefendant, Kevin Leland. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the postarrest written statement of Leland was not shown to be against Leland’s penal interest, as it was largely exculpatory (see People v Singh, 47 AD3d 733, 734 [2008]). Therefore, the statement was properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay. Since the statement was properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay, the defendant’s contention that exclusion of the statement violated his constitutional right to present a defense is without merit (see People v Simmons, 84 AD3d 1120 [2011]; People v Cepeda, 208 AD2d 364 [1994]).
The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counsel either did not object to the challenged remarks or made only general objections (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alvarado, 126 AD3d 803, 805 [2015]; People v Taylor, 120 AD3d 519, 520 [2014]). In any event, the challenged summation remarks were fair comment on the evidence, constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s summation, or otherwise do not warrant reversal (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Johnson, 127 AD3d 785, 786 [2015]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.