From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mumford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1991
169 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

January 24, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.).


Several hours after selling two vials of crack to an undercover officer, defendant was arrested and found in possession of seven additional vials of crack. He also possessed $86, which included some of the "buy money". Defendant testified that the crack he possessed was for his personal use, and that the cash was the change he had received from the person who sold him the drugs.

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because the currency was introduced into evidence. Though defendant was charged with only one sale, the money was admissible on the question of defendant's intent to sell. (People v Milom, 75 A.D.2d 68.) Moreover, the court advised the jury that the money was only to be considered in determining defendant's guilt on the possession count.

We have examined defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Mumford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1991
169 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Mumford

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEROY MUMFORD…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1991

Citations

169 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
564 N.Y.S.2d 424

Citing Cases

People v. Jackson

Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the $57 found on his person upon his arrest was improperly…

Com. v. Camperson

See: Commonwealth v. Matthews, 415 Pa. Super. 306, 609 A.2d 204 (1992); Commonwealth v. Echevarria, supra 394…