From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DeJesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 21, 1995
219 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

September 21, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.).


The trial court properly declined to charge entrapment, since defendant failed to set forth evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to him, to support that affirmative defense sufficiently. As stated in People v Brown ( 82 N.Y.2d 869, 871), defendant had the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that "(1) he was actively induced or encouraged to commit the offense by a public official; and (2) such inducement or encouragement created a `substantial risk' that the offense would be committed by defendant who was not otherwise disposed to commit it". While defendant's testimony, in diverging from the People's version of the event, created an issue of fact for the jury with respect to the first branch of the required showing ( see, People v Speros, 186 A.D.2d 434; People v Fuller, 130 A.D.2d 840; cf., People v Vina, 193 A.D.2d 770, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 760), he failed to present any evidence to show his lack of a predisposition to commit the crimes charged. Indeed, defendant's admitted drug use is a circumstance that has been found relevant to the willingness to participate in a drug transaction ( see, People v Caballero, 160 A.D.2d 810, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 785, vacated on other grounds 217 A.D.2d 704).

Contrary to defendant's contention, People v Torres ( 185 A.D.2d 257, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 977) does not suggest a different result. In Torres, which was a prosecution for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, there was testimony from both detectives on the case that they had never before heard either that defendant was a drug seller or that he possessed large quantities of drugs; in addition, there was detailed testimony that defendant had purchased small amounts for his personal use only.

Where the third degree possession count for which defendant was convicted is not a lesser included offense of the sale count for which he was convicted, dismissal of the possession count is not required.

Under the circumstances herein, the sentences were excessive to the extent indicated.

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. DeJesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Sep 21, 1995
219 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. DeJesus

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MELVIN DeJESUS…

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

Date published: Sep 21, 1995

Citations

219 A.D.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 659