Court Opinion

ID: 3171181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-21 16:06:41.278639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:02:54.182107
License: Public Domain

Peters, P.J.
 

  Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered August 13, 2013 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
 

  Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree stemming from his sale of heroin to a confidential informant (hereinafter Cl) on April 10, 2012. The trial evidence established that police detectives strip-searched the Cl for contraband and, finding none, fitted her with a wire and provided her with prerecorded buy money. The Cl was then transported by one of the detectives to a location in the City of Albany where she made a controlled call to defendant arranging for the two to meet. While under constant police surveillance, the Cl walked via a predetermined route to the agreed-upon location and, after waiting for approximately 20 minutes, defendant and another individual arrived and the three entered a basement apartment. Although the detectives did not observe the transaction, the Cl testified that, while in the apartment, defendant gave her a bag of heroin in return for which she gave defendant the marked buy money. After exiting the apartment, the Cl returned to the police vehicle and turned over a bag containing a substance that was later determined to be heroin. A search of the Cl upon arrival back at the police station again revealed no drugs or money on her person.
 

  Defendant challenges the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence, specifically arguing that the testimony of the Cl — the only witness to identify him as the individual who sold the heroin — was so inherently suspect as to be unworthy of belief. Although the Cl has a lengthy criminal history and agreed to assist authorities in the controlled drug buy in exchange for dismissal of an outstanding drug charge against her, these issues were fully explored on cross-examination and presented to the jury for its consideration (see
  
   People v Gibson,
  
  121 AD3d 1416, 1418 [2014],
  
   lv denied
  
  24 NY3d 1119 [2015];
  
   People v Jones,
  
  101 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2012],
  
   lv denied
  
  21 NY3d 944 [2013];
  
   People v Wilson,
  
  100 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2012],
  
   lv denied
  
  22 NY3d 998 [2013];
  
   People v Rose,
  
  79 AD3d 1365, 1366-1367 [2010]). Moreover, the CFs testimony was consistent and corroborated by the detectives who had her under constant surveillance and confirmed that she entered the apartment
   
   *1164
   
  with the buy money and without any contraband but exited it with heroin (see
  
   People v Heaney,
  
  75 AD3d 836, 837 [2010],
  
   lv denied
  
  15 NY3d 852 [2010];
  
   People v Golden,
  
  24 AD3d 806, 807 [2005],
  
   lv denied
  
  6 NY3d 813 [2006]). Evaluating the evidence in a neutral light and deferring to the jury’s credibility assessments (see
  
   People v Danielson,
  
  9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), we find that the jury gave the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see
  
   People v Gibson,
  
  121 AD3d at 1418;
  
   People v Nichol,
  
  121 AD3d 1174, 1177 [2014],
  
   lv denied
  
  25 NY3d 1205 [2015];
  
   People v Tisdale,
  
  103 AD3d 987, 988 [2013],
  
   lv denied
  
  21 NY3d 1010 [2013];
  
   People v Rose,
  
  79 AD3d at 1367).
 

  Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court failed to give adequate cautionary instructions to the jury concerning, note taking is unpreserved for our review (see
  
   People v Tubbs,
  
  115 AD3d 1009, 1011-1012 [2014];
  
   People v Schwing,
  
  9 AD3d 685, 686 [2004],
  
   lv denied
  
  3 NY3d 742 [2004];
  
   People v Thornton,
  
  4 AD3d 561, 563 [2004],
  
   lv denied
  
  2 NY3d 808 [2004]).
 

  Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.