From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 15, 1996
230 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

August 15, 1996


Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), entered May 30, 1995, which reduced both the first count of Indictment No. 7791/94 charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16) and the third count of said indictment charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06) to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03), unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the original counts one and three of Indictment No. 7791/94 are reinstated.

The hearing court's reduction of the first and third counts of the indictment in this matter, apparently upon its finding that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient to establish defendant's knowledge of the weight of the contraband in question, was error. It is clear that a defendant's knowledge of the weight of a controlled substance can be shown by inferences drawn from the circumstances attendant to defendant's possession, such as the amount of the controlled substance possessed, uniform packaging of the substance, defendant's handling of the substance, and "saleslike conduct" or other circumstances which demonstrate an involvement in the sale of drugs ( People v Sanchez, 86 N.Y.2d 27, 33-35).

In this matter, the Grand Jury was presented with evidence that defendant possessed an amount of cocaine well in excess of the minimum amounts required to support charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, along with other substantial evidence that defendant was engaged in the packaging for sale and the sale of cocaine. It is well settled that "[t]he sufficiency of the People's presentation is properly determined by inquiring whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury" ( People v Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 114). Viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the People, it is clear that the grand jurors could reasonably conclude that defendant knowingly possessed the amounts required to support the charges of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Aug 15, 1996
230 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Soto

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. SERGIO SOTO, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 15, 1996

Citations

230 A.D.2d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
646 N.Y.S.2d 328

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Rusczyk

7 grams. Respondent's acceptance of the prosecutor's statement regarding the quantity of Ecstasy pills found…

In the Matter of Kerri H

(Gittleman v. Gittleman, 81 A.D.2d 632, 633) "; Zuckerman v. Zuckerman ,154 A.D.2d 666, 668 (2nd Dept, 1989);…