Summary
In Hough, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees based upon a laboratory analysis of drugs where that analysis involved a statistical sampling of the substance in question.
Summary of this case from Alix v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Opinion
1630
September 24, 2002.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered November 24, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years and 3 1/2 to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
HOPE KORENSTEIN, for respondent.
SOLOMON J. SCHEPPS, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Friedman, JJ.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion made when the People revealed, during trial, that a statistical sampling method had been used to test the drugs in question. The People complied with the disclosure requirements of CPL 240.20(1)(c) by timely disclosure of the laboratory report, and there is no requirement to disclose the testing methodology employed. In any event, the report did provide some indication of the method employed. Testing of drugs by statistical sampling is not novel (see People v. Argro, 37 N.Y.2d 929; People v. Barnes, 249 A.D.2d 227,lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 893; People v. Thurman, 179 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954), and defendant has not established that he was prejudiced in any manner. We note that defendant's entire theory of defense rested on the claim that the drugs belonged to someone else.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.