Opinion
June 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The detective's observation of defendant exchanging an object for money, combined with defendant's possession of 16 bags of crack and $224, provided ample evidence of intent to sell. This and defendants handling of the plastic bags containing crack "connotes sufficient contact with the substance to experience its weight — to give rise to a probability defendant became aware of the weight of the drugs in his possession" (People v. Sanchez, 86 N.Y.2d 27, 33). Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and we see no reason to disturb its determinations.
The challenged background testimony on street level narcotics transactions clarified issues beyond the ken of the ordinary juror (see, People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 288) and did not mislead the jury into believing that defendant was involved in a large scale narcotics organization or divert their attention to the drug trade in general instead of the charges against defendant (see, People v. Lacey, 245 A.D.2d 145, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 927).
The count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree relating to cocaine, as conceded by the People, must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of third-degree possession.
We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.