Narrative Opinion Summary
The defendant's appeal from a judgment by the Supreme Court, Queens County, which convicted him of third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, has been affirmed. The conviction was based on a jury verdict dated March 15, 1995. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he sold cocaine to an undercover officer; however, this argument was deemed unpreserved for appellate review. Even so, when evaluating the evidence favorably towards the prosecution, it was found sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A factual review also confirmed that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The remaining arguments presented by the defendant were determined to lack merit. The judgment was supported by Justices Rosenblatt, J.P., Altman, Florio, and McGinity.
Legal Issues Addressed
Merit of Remaining Arguments in Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found the defendant's other arguments to lack merit, further affirming the conviction.
Reasoning: The remaining arguments presented by the defendant were determined to lack merit.
Preservation of Issues for Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence was not preserved for appellate review, indicating that certain procedural requirements must be met to raise issues on appeal.
Reasoning: The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he sold cocaine to an undercover officer; however, this argument was deemed unpreserved for appellate review.
Sufficiency of Evidence in Criminal Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and found it sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning: Even so, when evaluating the evidence favorably towards the prosecution, it was found sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Weight of the Evidence in Jury Verdictssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A factual review determined that the jury's verdict was consistent with the weight of the evidence, supporting the conviction.
Reasoning: A factual review also confirmed that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.