People v A
2018 NY Slip Op 03136
May 2, 2018
People v A
2018 NY Slip Op 03136
May 2, 2018
NY Slip Op. 07041
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on 11-20-14 against the defendant. The defendant was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 3d degree and possession of drug paraphernalia in the 2nd degree. Pursuant to PL section 220.50 - , the defendant argues that there was no direct evidence of constructive possession and therefore he should never have been convicted. The trial court erred in failing to provide a circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury. This court agrees. The judgment against the defendant is reversed and a new trial is granted.
Police officers executed a search warrant at the residence of the defendant’s girlfriend. The girlfriend leased this apartment in her name. When the police searched the premises, they found baggies of cocaine throughout the apartment, as well as paraphernalia in the form of scales, sandwich baggies and dillutant. The defendant’s name was on mail left at the apartment, but otherwise, it didn’t appear that he lived there.
People v. Green
Court Discusses Prejudicial Treatment Resulting Prosecution’s Witness and Summation The defendant was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree. The police went to the defendant’s apartment where he then sought to dispose of a bag by throwing it from a window. The bag was retrieved by an officer and 56 glassine envelopes were discovered. The defendant as well as the other occupant was arrested and charged. During the trial the defendant testified that he had never used or possessed drugs at any time. The one of the police officers testified that he heard the window open and close and that he was denied entry into the apartment by the defendant. Another officer testified that he saw the defendant throwing a bag from the window and he retrieved the bag. The defendant was convicted and appealed the conviction on the ground that he was denied a fair trial.
The defendant, BS, was charged with violating the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law § § 1192(3)- Driving While Intoxicated, 1194(1)(b)- Refusal of Breath Screening Test, 1128(a)-Moved From Lane Unsafely, 1129(a) -Following Too Closely and §1227-1 -Consumption or Possession of Alcoholic Beverage in Motor Vehicle.
All these are in connection with an incident allegedly occurring on 4 December 2010, in the Town of Greece, County of Monroe, State of New York. Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court dated 23 December 2010 this matter was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Town of Greece to the jurisdiction of the Town of Parma. The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, waived his right to a trial by jury by signing a Jury Trial Waiver Form and requested this Court to render a decision following a fair and impartial trial on 11 April 2011.
The defendant has been indicted for the commission of the crime of Criminally Selling a Dangerous Drug Possession in the Third Degree, a Class C Felony, in violation of the Penal Law § 220.35, and he now moves that the indictment then be dismissed.
A New York Criminal attorney said that the district attorney responds to the effect that the people have no scientific reports in their possession, but will provide such reports which may come into their possession in the future, and ask that the motion be denied without prejudice to a renewal at the time of trial under circumstances where the chain of evidence will not be interfered with.
The defendant moves to dismiss the indictment against her claiming that the statutes upon which the charges are founded are unconstitutional. Defendant is alleged to have sold over an ounce of a substance containing methadone to an undercover officer. This alleged sale has given rise to the three charges contained in the indictment; one count relates to the alleged sale and the others to the defendant’s possession immediately prior to the sale.
A New York Criminal attorney said that the thrust of the defendant’s claim with respect to the use of the ‘aggregate weight’ of the substance possessed and sold as the basis for determining the degree of offense charged in the first and second counts is that it creates irrational distinctions between similar kinds of conduct and imposes unequal punishments upon offenders who have committed virtually identical illegal acts.