Opinion
January 21, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.).
The court properly exercised its discretion in receiving testimony from an expert concerning packaging and market value of narcotics. This testimony contained details that were highly unlikely to be within the knowledge of an average juror ( see, People v. Van Huse, 187 A.D.2d 684, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 894; People v. Polanco, 169 A.D.2d 551, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 965). The testimony was relevant to intent to sell under the third-degree possession count and to knowledge of weight (pursuant to then-applicable law) under the fifth-degree count. Although the main issue at trial was whether defendant possessed the drugs at all, the People "were not bound to stop after presenting minimum evidence" ( People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245) as to these other essential elements. There was nothing in the expert testimony to suggest that defendant was part of a large-scale drug operation, or to "bolster" the credibility of the arresting officers, and the court's limiting instructions prevented the jury from drawing any such inferences. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.