New York Court of Appeals, 1979

People v. Seale

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 26, 1979

47 N.Y.2d 923; 393 N.E.2d 484; 419 N.Y.S.2d 489; 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2177

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Konstantinides (N.Y. 2009)
People v. Finley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Alwadish (N.Y. 1986)
People v. Ventura (N.Y. 1985)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Ventura (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Bradley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Singer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing the defendant’s request for a charge on the affirmative defense of entrapment. The trial court was correct in refusing to instruct the jury on this affirmative defense because the defendant failed to raise a factual question as to whether he was actively induced by government agents to commit the criminal act of possession for which he was convicted (Penal Law, § 40.05).

*925Defendant also contends that he was deprived of his right to counsel, and his right of confrontation because of the inability and failure of defense counsel to adequately examine a key witness, an informant, on matters relating to the informant’s character. This claim was predicated on counsel’s prior representation of that witness in an unrelated criminal proceeding. On this record it cannot be said .that defense counsel’s efforts on behalf of his client in defense of the possession charge were in any way limited in consequence of such prior representation. In addition, the defendant at trial admitted having engaged in the conduct underlying both possession charges. Since the jury convicted him only of these two offenses, any failure of defense counsel to attack the character of the informant could not reasonably have prejudiced the defendant.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.