From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bynum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1992
187 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 2, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. The defendant was found standing in close proximity to a table holding approximately 12 ounces of cocaine, at least some of which was in open view, and aluminum foil, a scale, and a spoon. When narcotics are found in open view in a room other than a public place, under circumstances evincing an intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package, or otherwise prepare them for sale, every person in close proximity to the narcotics at the time of their discovery is presumed to have knowingly possessed them (see, Penal Law § 220.25). Although this presumption is rebuttable, in this case, based upon all the evidence, the jury could have properly drawn the inference of criminal possession from the defendant's presence at the place of discovery (see, People v Daniels, 37 N.Y.2d 624; People v Shakes, 150 A.D.2d 401; People v McCall, 137 A.D.2d 561; People v Hylton, 125 A.D.2d 409). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

We find that the charge, when read as a whole, adequately instructed the jury as to the People's burden of proof with respect to circumstantial evidence. The trial court instructed the jurors that they were required to find that the inference of guilt was the only inference that could be fairly and reasonably drawn from the facts and that the facts had to exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt (see, People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022; People v Schoenberger, 151 A.D.2d 520).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bynum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 2, 1992
187 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Bynum

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GARY BYNUM, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 2, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
589 N.Y.S.2d 542

Citing Cases

People v. Aleksiewicz

However, a review of the record indicates that the charge, considered as a whole, properly explained the…