From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Watkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 8, 2001
284 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

June 8, 2001.

(Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.)

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant contends that his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39) must be reversed because the People failed to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was the seller of a controlled substance and not an agent of the buyer ( see, People v. Richards, 275 A.D.2d 886, 887, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 738; People v. Trotty, 262 A.D.2d 337, 338 , lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1028). Defendant actively initiated the sale, thereby exhibiting salesmanlike behavior. Furthermore, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). It cannot be said that, in rejecting the agency defense, the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see, People v. Richards, supra, at 887).


Summaries of

People v. Watkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 8, 2001
284 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Watkins

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JEROME J…

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

Date published: Jun 8, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 513

Citing Cases

People v. Tillman

In addition, the evidence shows an ongoing relationship between defendant and his drug supplier, or an…

People v. Poole

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is…