# People v. Brown

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · November 14, 1994 · 209 A.D.2d 532

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5982222

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Tommy Brown
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** November 14, 1994
- **Citations:** 209 A.D.2d 532; 619 N.Y.S.2d 625
- **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/5982222

## Opinion text

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered April 15, 1992, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Morales, 162 AD2d 128 ; cf., People v Gordon, 76 NY2d 595 ). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]; see also, People v Ortiz, 170 AD2d 396 ).
Further, the defendant’s contention that the proof of his guilt was entirely circumstantial and, therefore, the trial court committed reversible error in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge, is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not request a circumstantial evidence charge or object to the charge as given (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see also, People v Burgos, 170 AD2d 689 ) and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5982222. Public record. Not legal advice.