| People v Boyd |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00392 [135 AD3d 1163] |
| January 21, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJohn Boyd, Also Known as JB, Appellant. |
Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Vincent Stark of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), renderedAugust 13, 2013 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree stemming from his sale of heroin to a confidentialinformant (hereinafter CI) on April 10, 2012. The trial evidence established that policedetectives strip-searched the CI for contraband and, finding none, fitted her with a wireand provided her with prerecorded buy money. The CI was then transported by one of thedetectives to a location in the City of Albany where she made a controlled call todefendant arranging for the two to meet. While under constant police surveillance, the CIwalked via a predetermined route to the agreed-upon location and, after waiting forapproximately 20 minutes, defendant and another individual arrived and the three entereda basement apartment. Although the detectives did not observe the transaction, the CItestified that, while in the apartment, defendant gave her a bag of heroin in return forwhich she gave defendant the marked buy money. After exiting the apartment, the CIreturned to the police vehicle and turned over a bag containing a substance that was laterdetermined to be heroin. A search of the CI upon arrival back at the police station againrevealed 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 CI—the only witness to identify himas the individual who sold [*2]the heroin—was soinherently suspect as to be unworthy of belief. Although the CI has a lengthy criminalhistory and agreed to assist authorities in the controlled drug buy in exchange fordismissal of an outstanding drug charge against her, these issues were fully explored oncross-examination and presented to the jury for its consideration (see People v Gibson, 121AD3d 1416, 1418 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1119 [2015]; People v Jones, 101 AD3d1241, 1242 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]; People v Wilson, 100 AD3d1045, 1046 [2012], lv denied 22 NY3d 998 [2013]; People v Rose, 79 AD3d1365, 1366-1367 [2010]). Moreover, the CI's testimony was consistent andcorroborated by the detectives who had her under constant surveillance and confirmedthat she entered the apartment with the buy money and without any contraband but exitedit with heroin (see People vHeaney, 75 AD3d 836, 837 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 852 [2010]; People v Golden, 24 AD3d806, 807 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]). Evaluating the evidence ina neutral light and deferring to the jury's credibility assessments (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), we find that the jury gave the evidence the weight itshould be accorded (see People v Gibson, 121 AD3d at 1418; People v Nichol, 121 AD3d1174, 1177 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1205 [2015]; People v Tisdale, 103 AD3d987, 988 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1010 [2013]; People v Rose, 79AD3d at 1367).
Defendant's contention that Supreme Court failed to give adequate cautionaryinstructions to the jury concerning note taking is unpreserved for our review (see People v Tubbs, 115 AD3d1009, 1011-1012 [2014]; People v Schwing, 9 AD3d 685, 686 [2004], lvdenied 3 NY3d 742 [2004]; People v Thornton, 4 AD3d 561, 563 [2004], lvdenied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]).
Lahtinen, Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.