Articles Posted in Drug Possession

In a case involving marijuana possession, the Appellate Division reviewed what actions amount to the crime of tampering of physical evidence.

On May 9, 2013, in the City of Newburgh, the defendant was stopped as it was suspected that he was violating the City’s open-container law. After the officer identified himself, the defendant fled.  While chasing the defendant, the officer noticed the defendant discard a plastic bag which, it was later determined, contained marijuana. The defendant was apprehended, arrested, and charged with a number of offenses, including tampering with physical evidence. Prior to trial, the defendant filed an omnibus motion to suppress the physical evidence.  The motion was denied.

At trial the defendant testified that he did not discard any marijuana and that nothing was found on him when he was searched.  Nonetheless, the jury convicted him of several charges including unlawful possession of marijuana and tampering with physical evidence.

People v. AA

June 5, 2018

This appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New York County rendered on June 13, 2016. The defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to ten years. There are three judgments that took place subsequently in the same court with the same judge. The defendant was convicted of second-degree use of drug paraphernalia, fourth-degree conspiracy and third-degree sale of a controlled substance. As a result, his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two concurrent ten-year sentences.

People v Prindle

2017 New York Slip Op. 05267

June 29, 2017

People v A

2018 NY Slip Op 03136

May 2, 2018

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 2^nd degree. Pursuant to PL section 220.50 [1]- [3], 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.

Both the girlfriend and the defendant were indicted for possession. The girlfriend plead guilty and stated that all of the items were hers. Despite this, the trial court proceeded against the defendant under the theory of constructive possession.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Continue reading

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading