Summary
In Bolido, the defendant dropped bags containing drugs after noting the mere presence of police officers. 223 AD2d at 467.
Summary of this case from People v. BowdenOpinion
January 23, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).
Defendant did not preserve by appropriate objection his current claims of error regarding the hearing court's denial of his suppression motion ( People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031). In any event, the record supports the hearing court's determination that defendant's action in dropping the bags containing the drugs after noting the mere presence of the police officers, who approached defendant based upon probable cause to arrest him for observed drug transactions, constituted a voluntary abandonment of the contraband ( see, People v Shepherd, 197 A.D.2d 393).
The trial court properly permitted the arresting officer to testify that in his experience the two different drugs recovered herein were commonly sold together, as evidence relevant to the contested issue of whether defendant had in fact possessed both drugs ( see, People v Applewhite, 202 A.D.2d 250, 251, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 868). Contrary to defendant's argument, the testimony did not suggest that defendant was involved in a large-scale drug operation and any possible prejudice to defendant was cured by the court's immediate instruction regarding the limited purpose of the testimony. It is presumed that the jury understood and followed the court's instruction ( People v Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102).
We find the sentence imposed on the conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree to be excessive to the extent indicated. We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.