Opinion
February 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the afternoon of December 24, 1991, a United States Customs Inspector performing random stops of passengers arriving on flights from countries identified as drug sources approached the defendant, who was holding a gray briefcase. In response to the inspector's questions, the defendant stated that he had traveled to the United States from Nigeria via Amsterdam and admitted that the briefcase in his possession belonged to him. When the defendant opened the briefcase at the inspector's request, the inspector immediately noticed an overwhelming odor of glue, and, upon further examination, she observed that the sides of the briefcase were unusually thick. The inspector then ripped the lining from the briefcase and recovered more than six ounces of heroin from two bags concealed behind false panels.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that, contrary to the defendant's contention, it is legally sufficient to establish that the defendant knowingly possessed the heroin concealed in the briefcase (see generally, People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285, cert denied 405 U.S. 1041). The defendant's additional contention that the People failed to establish his knowledge of the weight of the heroin found in his possession is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859; People v. Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508). In any event, the evidence that the defendant personally carried the heroin into the country, together with the other circumstantial evidence presented, was sufficient to permit the jury to infer that the defendant knew that the heroin weighed four or more ounces (see, People v. Ryan, 82 N.Y.2d 497; People v. Almonte, 210 A.D.2d 911; People v. Cohen, 210 A.D.2d 245; People v. Dillon, 207 A.D.2d 793; People v. Okehoffurum, supra). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.