From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Summary

In Smith (258 A.D.2d 245, supra), as in Watson,supra, the concern about authentication related to the ease with which forgery could be accomplished.

Summary of this case from People v. Baker

Opinion

March 17, 1995

Appeal from the Jefferson County Court, Clary, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law, motion denied, indictment reinstated and matter remitted to Jefferson County Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Memorandum: County Court erred in dismissing the indictment upon the ground of insufficient evidence. "On a motion addressed to sufficiency of an indictment (CPL 210.20 [b]) * * * the defendant is entitled to a review based on whether there was competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission of it (CPL 70.10; People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 115)" (People v. Mikuszewski, 73 N.Y.2d 407, 411; see also, People v Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 568). "The test of legal sufficiency in this context is whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would be sufficient to warrant conviction by a trial jury" (People v Manini, supra, at 568-569). The People need not establish reasonable cause to believe that defendant committed the crime charged (People v. Reyes, 75 N.Y.2d 590, 593; People v Mikuszewski, supra, at 411).

The indictment charges defendant with criminal possession of a narcotic drug with the intent to sell, in violation of Penal Law § 220.16 (1). A Grand Jury may infer that defendant had an intent to sell from evidence that he possessed a quantity of a narcotic drug packaged in a particular manner (see, People v. Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245-246 [21 glassines of cocaine]). The evidence before the Grand Jury established that defendant possessed 10 small glassine Ziploc bags containing a total of 1.28 grams of cocaine enclosed in a larger glassine bag and seven glassine bags containing a total of 9.09 grams of marihuana. A narcotics investigator testified that, based on his training and experience, a person with individual bags of cocaine of that size and quantity may intend to distribute the drugs. That evidence, if unexplained and uncontradicted, is legally sufficient to warrant an inference of intent to sell and to support a jury conviction.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 1995
213 A.D.2d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

In Smith (258 A.D.2d 245, supra), as in Watson,supra, the concern about authentication related to the ease with which forgery could be accomplished.

Summary of this case from People v. Baker

In Smith (258 AD2d 245, supra), as in Watson (supra), the concern about authentication related to the ease with which forgery could be accomplished. A blank form with the seal and the signature already on it was used and then apparently typed on. No evidence of comparison was provided.

Summary of this case from People v. Baker
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. WILLIAM L. SMITH…

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

Date published: Mar 17, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 1073 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
625 N.Y.S.2d 114

Citing Cases

People v. Winans

An indictment is presumed to be based upon valid and sufficient evidence (People v Bergerson, 17 N.Y.2d 398,…

People v. Sanford

Defendant's motion to dismiss this indictment must be denied if the evidence presented to the grand jury,…