People v Watley

Annotate this Case
People v Watley 2013 NY Slip Op 00708 Decided on February 5, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 5, 2013
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, JJ.
9186 4806/08

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

James Watley, Defendant-Appellant.




Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New
York (Kerry S. Jamieson of counsel), and Cleary Gottlieb Steen
& Hamilton LLP, New York (Rishi Zutshi of counsel), for
appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheila O'Shea
of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia M. Nunez, J.), rendered June 23, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its evaluation of the officer's ability to observe a drug transaction.

To the extent the observing officer, who also testified as an expert witness, gave testimony in his expert capacity that improperly went to the ultimate issue of whether there was a drug transaction, the court provided a suitable remedy. The court's careful instructions were sufficient to prevent that limited testimony from causing any prejudice.

We have considered defendant's remaining challenges to the officer's testimony, as well as defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation, and we find no basis for reversal.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 5, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.