From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Flores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 2005
14 A.D.3d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5046

January 6, 2005.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered December 12, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.


The court properly delivered a consciousness-of-guilt charge, since defendant's abandonment, at the approach of the police, of a paper bag later discovered to contain heroin, as well as his struggle with the police before being handcuffed, provided a sufficient evidentiary predicate for such a charge ( see People v. Yazum, 13 NY2d 302, 304; see also People v. Alexander, 37 NY2d 202, 203). Any ambiguity in defendant's conduct was for the jury to consider. Defendant's challenge to the language of the consciousness-of-guilt charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge conveyed the proper standards.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.


Summaries of

People v. Flores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 2005
14 A.D.3d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

People v. Flores

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. AUGUSTIN FLORES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 6, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
789 N.Y.S.2d 105

Citing Cases

People v. Jobi

Observing that “[t]his court has always recognized the ambiguity of evidence of flight and insisted that the…

People v. Alejandro Arriaga

The defendant's claim that the language of the consciousness of guilt charge was improper and misleading is…