People v. Noble

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 86 N.Y.2d 814, 633 N.Y.S.2d 469, 657 N.E.2d 490, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2751

Decision Date: 9/19/1995

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Noble, 86 N.Y.2d 814, 633 N.Y.S.2d 469, 657 N.E.2d 490, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2751 (1995)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1995

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Noble, Appellant.

Attorneys

  • APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
  • Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City (Julie Rosensweig of counsel), E. Joshua Rosenkranz and Mark Gimpel for appellant.
  • Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was arrested in October 1992 for possession of 39 vials containing over 1,350 milligrams of pure cocaine. He was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the issue of defendant’s knowledge of the weight of the evidence had not been preserved. Subsequently, this Court decided People v Gray (86 NY2d 10), holding that defendant was required to preserve the issue of his knowledge of the weight of the drugs.

We are unpersuaded by defendant’s additional argument that the Appellate Division below failed to exercise its unique weight of the evidence review power in this case (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we hold that the Appellate Division is constrained to weigh the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged without objection by defendant (cf., People v Gray, supra). Viewed in this light, the decision below does not "manifest a lack of application” of the Appellate Division’s unique weight of the evidence review power (see, Bleakley, supra, at 496). As we observed in Bleakley, the Appellate Division is not required to expressly address that review power by writing in all criminal cases (see, id.).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review óf submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.