Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
People v. Ramirez
15 N.Y.3d 824
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2010-09-16
- Topic
- litigation
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the Appellate Division properly concluded that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and drug paraphernalia located in an apartment in which defendant himself was found (see generally People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]). Moreover, although the record is silent as to whether Supreme Court showed the jury note to counsel as required in *826 People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]), defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court’s response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured.
Citator
- Cited by
- 26 opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Contrary to defendant’s argument, the Appellate Division properly concluded that the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant constructively possessed the drugs and drug paraphernalia located in an apartment in which defendant himself was found (see generally People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]).
Moreover, although the record is silent as to whether Supreme Court showed the jury note to counsel as required in *826 People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]), defense counsel had notice of the contents of the note and the court’s response, and failed to object at that time, when the error could have been cured. Accordingly, defendant’s claim is unpreserved for review (see People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; see also People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426, 429-430 [2010]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.