| People v Thaddies |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 03257 [50 AD3d 1249] |
| April 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James A.Thaddies, Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (John R. Thweatt of counsel), forrespondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.),rendered January 12, 2007, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
On two separate occasions, a confidential informant made controlled buys of cocaine fromdefendant. After a trial where the informant and four police officers testified, the jury convicteddefendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Defendantappeals.
The People were not required to provide corroboration of the informant's testimony pursuantto CPL 60.22. "An informant acting as an agent of the police without the intent to commit acrime is not an accomplice whose testimony requires corroboration" (People v Brown, 2 AD3d 1423,1424 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 625 [2004] [citations omitted]; see People v Arrington, 31 AD3d801, 804 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 865 [2006]; People v Tillman, 289 AD2d1006, 1007 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 734 [2002]; cf. People v Cona, 49 NY2d26, 34 [1979]). The informant's testimony, along with the laboratory reports proving that thesubstance she purchased on each occasion was cocaine, provided sufficient evidence to supportthe charges. While there were many reasons to question the informant's credibility, those issueswere presented to the jury. Giving deference to the jury's determination to accept her testimony as[*2]credible, the verdict was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Walton, 16AD3d 903, 904 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 796 [2005]).
We will not consider defendant's arguments concerning County Court's jury charge, asdefendant did not object to the charge or request the instructions now raised (see People vJames, 75 NY2d 874, 875 [1990]; People v Mahan, 195 AD2d 881, 882 [1993]).
Lastly, defendant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing torequest a jury instruction on the agency defense for one of the drug sales. An agency defensewould have been inconsistent with the defense pursued at trial, namely that defendant was not theindividual who sold cocaine to the informant (see People v McVey, 289 AD2d 260, 260[2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 758 [2002]; People v Leigh, 232 AD2d 904, 906[1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1037 [1997]). It was therefore reasonable for counsel not torequest an agency instruction.
Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.