From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 1994
209 A.D.2d 174 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 1, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.).


It is by now well settled that a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision or exactness as is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law (People v Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449, 454; People v. Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 394). Where a narcotics charge is under consideration, defendant is entitled to have a Grand Jury instructed regarding the agency defense if a reasonable view of the evidence exists to indicate that the defendant acted only as an accommodation for, or on behalf of, the purchasing police officer (see, People v Corporan, 200 A.D.2d 155, 158).

The Court of Appeals in People v. Herring ( 83 N.Y.2d 780, 782) held that "entitlement to an agency charge depends entirely on the relationship between the buyer and the defendant". In addition, it was stated that a defendant may be guilty as a seller even if he or she does not receive any consideration for the transfer of the drugs to the buyer. Furthermore, solicitation or the lack of it is not dispositive and evidence that the defendant was acting as a "middleman" is not sufficient to warrant an agency defense charge (supra, at 782).

In this case as in People v. Herring (supra), the defendant had no prior contact with the officer. When the officer approached the defendant and asked in street jargon if he "was working bottles" (in People v. Herring [supra, at 783] the officer asked if the defendant had "`any nickels'"), the defendant immediately responded in the affirmative and directed the officer to the co-defendant and called the co-defendant over. The defendant's behavior before and during the sale was consistent with that of a "`steerer'" in a drug sales operation (People v. Herring, supra, at 783). It was, therefore, error on the part of the hearing court to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment in this case on the ground that an instruction upon the agency defense was required.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 1, 1994
209 A.D.2d 174 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Perez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. DIOGENES PEREZ, Also…

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

Date published: Nov 1, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 174 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 747

Citing Cases

People v. Sanchez

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There…

People v. Page

The evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of acting in…