From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Espino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 3, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed as to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

The defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed, and the indictment dismissed, because the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the cocaine allegedly sold by the defendant and his codefendant on September 20, 1990, to an undercover police officer. We agree. The record reveals that the People failed to establish the complete chain of custody for the cocaine which was admitted into evidence. Such a failure to establish a chain of custody may be excused where the circumstances provide reasonable assurances as to the identity and the unchanged condition of the evidence (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343; People v. Newman, 129 A.D.2d 742). Here, however, the testimony adduced at trial was insufficient to provide reasonable assurances of the unchanged condition of the cocaine. In fact, the testimony established that the undercover officer purchased a white powdery substance, but the cocaine admitted into evidence at trial was "brownish-white" and hard. Although the police chemist testified that under certain conditions the color of cocaine can change from white to brown, the People failed to proffer an explanation as to the change in the texture of the cocaine between the time that it was purchased by the undercover officer and the time that it was introduced at trial (see, People v. Steiner, 148 A.D.2d 980; cf., People v Luna, 191 A.D.2d 588). Thus the cocaine was inadmissible, rendering the evidence against the defendant legally insufficient to establish that he sold a controlled substance. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree must be reversed, and the indictment dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to reach the defendant's remaining contentions. Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Espino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 3, 1994
208 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Espino

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PEDRO ESPINO, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 3, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 782

Citing Cases

People v. Baez

Defendant argues that no reasonable assurances exist to bridge the gap in the chain of custody because there…

People v. Rodriguez

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People produced legally sufficient evidence that the gun was…