A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 14, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
A Kings Sex Crimes Lawyer said that, in the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the references to 696 Washington Avenue as a “main distribution point” for heroin and the undercover officer’s statement that he “went back to purchase some more narcotics.” Both statements were the subject of objections followed by curative instructions, after which no further objection or motion for a mistrial was made. Thus, the court “must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction”. As to the third claim of error testimony that a second man entered the building, gave the defendant money and requested “halves” not only was there no objection to the testimony but on cross-examination defendant deliberately elicited a repetition of the testimony concerning the second man and used it in summation to imply that the undercover officer was confused as to who had actually sold him the heroin. Thus, there is no reason to invoke interest of justice analysis to reach this particular issue.
The issue in this case is whether the record demonstrates the existence of such prejudice as to have effectively denied the defendant a fair trial.
Reversal is sought on numerous grounds. The court believes that testimony was received at this trial which tended to create, in the jurors’ minds, the impression of the defendant’s guilt by improper suggestions of criminality by association and references to the commission of other sex crimes by him not the subject matter of the instant indictment, and, for these reasons, the judgment should be reversed.
In attempting to elicit introductory background evidence pertaining to the police preparations in effecting the defendant’s arrest for the offense which ultimately resulted in the subject indictment, the prosecuting attorney obtained from the Sergeant a description of the premises with which the appellant was repeatedly associated during the trial as follows: “696 Washington Avenue had been a location which was a target of the investigation from its inception. That location in addition to two others were the main distribution points for heroin in that area.”
To Be Cont….
Are involved in a criminal case? Seek the representation of a Kings Criminal Attorney and Kings Sex Crime Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates in order to defend your day in court. Call us for free consultation.