# People v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · October 13, 1994 · 208 A.D.2d 414

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5980426

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Anthony Brown
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** October 13, 1994
- **Citations:** 208 A.D.2d 414; 617 N.Y.S.2d 175; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9654
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5980426

## Opinion text

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.), rendered March 10, 1993, convicting defendant, upon a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755 , cert denied 469 US 932 ), defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 ). The undercover identified defendant after the drug sale and again at trial. The absence of drugs or pre-recorded buy money does not prevent a jury finding of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Vickers, 177 AD2d 608 ).
While the prosecutor’s improper statement implied that defendant should produce evidence to rebut his guilt (see, People v Pizzaro, 184 AD2d 448, 449 , lv denied 80 NY2d 908 ), the statement was not part of a pattern designed to prejudice the jury (People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 ), and there is not a significant likelihood that this single comment affected the verdict (People v Pizzaro, supra), especially in light of the court’s corrective charge.
We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5980426. Public record. Not legal advice.