From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 1997
238 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

April 24, 1997


Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered October 10, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the indictment dismissed. The matter is remitted to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order in favor of the accused pursuant to CPL 160.50, not less than 30 days after service of this order upon the respondent, with leave during this 30 day period to respondent to move and seek any further stay of the implementation of CPL 160.50 as in the interest of justice is required.

In order to hold an alleged accessory liable for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39), the People must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged accessory possessed the mental culpability necessary to commit the crime charged, and that in furtherance thereof, he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided the principal ( see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Kaplan, 76 N.Y.2d 140, 145-146), or, as here, that the defendant "intentionally aided" his codefendant in the sale of drugs, as opposed to merely providing assistance, "`believing it probable'" that he was rendering aid ( People v. Wylie, 180 A.D.2d 774, 775, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 767).

The evidence adduced at trial reveals that in response to the undercover's inquiry of whether "anyone" was working, the defendant replied "Yeah. My boy right here will hook you up." He then motioned to his codefendant, who was standing approximately five feet away. The undercover subsequently walked away with the codefendant and purchased drugs approximately 15 feet from where the defendant remained. Such evidence, standing alone, was legally insufficient to hold that the defendant acted in concert with the requisite mental culpability for the illicit transaction ( see, People v. Lopez, 213 A.D.2d 255, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 976; People v. Rosario, 193 A.D.2d 445, 445-446, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Bryant, 106 A.D.2d 650, 651, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 888).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 1997
238 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HAROLD JOHNSON…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 1997

Citations

238 A.D.2d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 27

Citing Cases

People v. Troy Hector

Here, the alleged accomplice did not merely respond to the undercover officer's inquiry as to who had drugs…

PEOPLE v. ROSA

Indeed, even where the defendant directs the buyer to the seller, that alone is insufficient to establish…