Summary
In People v. Cowie, 88 Hun 498, 34 N.Y.S. 888, the court held, quoting from the headnote: "Under laws of 1881, c. 187 as amended by laws of 1887, c. 17, which, in enumerating offenses punishable by confinement in the house of refuge for women, names `common prostitutes' it is a crime to be a common prostitute, though such offense is not provided for in the Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure."
Summary of this case from Adams v. Pace, SheriffOpinion
November 10, 1987
Appeal from the Livingston County Court, Cicoria, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, and new trial granted. Memorandum: The court erred in declining defendant's request for a charge on agency. Whether defendant acted as an agent of the buyer or as a seller in the drug transaction is a "factual question for the jury to resolve" (People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 N.Y.2d 64, 74, cert denied 439 U.S. 935). As "long as there is some reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant acted as a mere instrumentality of the buyer, [or the] determination of the existence of an agency relationship should be submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions" (People v. Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 86). Defendant did not suggest the purchase nor press for it. The informant pursued their relationship and initiated the conversations about drugs. There is no proof that defendant received a benefit as a result of the transaction. Moreover, the evidence could support the conclusion that defendant's motivation for procuring and selling a small amount of cocaine was the friendship that existed between defendant and the informant.