From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gentle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 1997
245 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 15, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cirigliano, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was not legally sufficient to sustain his conviction is not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the photocopies of the two pages of the forensic laboratory log book and the laboratory submission receipts were properly admitted into evidence as business records ( see, CPLR 4518 [a]; 4539) after a proper foundation was established ( see, People v. Kennedy, 68 N.Y.2d 569, 579-580; People v. Rosa, 156 A.D.2d 733; People v. Flores, 138 A.D.2d 512, 513).

The defendant's contention regarding the admission of expert testimony is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the evidence of the various chemical analyses conducted on the substances recovered, including both screening and confirmatory tests testified to by the People's forensic expert, was more than adequate to support the expert's opinion that the substances were cocaine and heroin ( see, People v. Garcia, 190 A.D.2d 749, 750; People v. Tramell, 152 A.D.2d 989, 990; People v. Flores, supra; People v. Harris, 130 A.D.2d 939, 940). Additionally, the forensic expert testified that prior to her use of the laboratory samples to which she compared the substances recovered from the defendant, she tested the laboratory samples to verify that they were heroin and cocaine ( cf., People v. Branton, 67 A.D.2d 664, 665; People v. Miller, 57 A.D.2d 668, 669).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Mangano, P.J., Santucci, Joy and Lerner, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gentle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 15, 1997
245 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Gentle

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WADE GENTLE, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 15, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 455

Citing Cases

Pisano v. Pisano

According to the Estate, for them to be admissible under the business records exception to hearsay, they must…