People v. Thurman

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Parker

    84 A.D.3d 1508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 13 times

    f an ounce, that the substance she tested weighed 27.6 grams, and that it would have been obvious if the scale's accuracy was off by 15 grams. Although she also acknowledged that she did not personally calibrate or verify the scale immediately before weighing the substance, defendant introduced no expert testimony or authority for the proposition that such procedures are required to assure reliability of the weighing device ( compare People v English, 103 AD2d at 980 n; see also People v Rotundo, 194 AD2d 943, 946, lv denied 82 NY2d 726). There was no evidence that the scale was malfunctioning or inaccurate. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find "`a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences'" from which the jury could rationally have concluded that the substance found on defendant's person weighed well over the requisite amount ( People v Pearson, 69 AD3d 1226, 1227, lv denied 15 NY3d 755, quoting People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 682; compare People v Thurman, 179 AD2d 382, 383, lv denied 79 NY2d 954). Accordingly, defendant's CPL 330.30 challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence was properly rejected. Further, viewing the evidence in a neutral light and according the appropriate deference to credibility determinations, we do not find that the jury failed to give the evidence the proper weight ( see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495; People v Flagg, 30 AD3d 889, 892, lv denied 7 NY3d 848).

  2. People v. Glover (Ronald)

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 52432 (N.Y. App. Term 2007)

    We note that, contrary to defendant's contention, the testing of the randomly selected Ziploc glassine bag was sufficient to establish the contents of the remaining bags ( see People v Wilcox, 198 AD2d 544, 545; People v Thurman, 179 AD2d 382). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).

  3. People v. Hough

    297 A.D.2d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 2 times
    In Hough, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees based upon a laboratory analysis of drugs where that analysis involved a statistical sampling of the substance in question.

    In any event, the report did provide some indication of the method employed. Testing of drugs by statistical sampling is not novel (see People v. Argro, 37 N.Y.2d 929; People v. Barnes, 249 A.D.2d 227,lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 893; People v. Thurman, 179 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954), and defendant has not established that he was prejudiced in any manner. We note that defendant's entire theory of defense rested on the claim that the drugs belonged to someone else.

  4. People v. Butler

    248 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    Analysis of a random sampling established that defendant possessed 754 milligrams of cocaine. Even if the 10% margin for error described in the expert testimony were to be applied to the calculations, defendant still possessed far in excess of the 500 milligram threshold for fifth-degree possession ( see, People v. Thurman, 179 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

  5. People v. Rodriguez

    190 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant now urges that as a matter of law, the chemist did not test a sufficient quantity of glassines. As we have previously noted, it is for the jury to decide whether the expert had adequately analyzed and weighed the contents and whether his opinion was entitled to be credited. (See, People v Thurman, 179 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954; People v Argro, 39 N.Y.2d 929, 930.) We do not find that the court's instruction as to weight misleading or improper.