People v. Lindsey
| Decision Date | 21 February 1963 |
| Citation | 238 N.Y.S.2d 956,12 N.Y.2d 958 |
| Parties | , 189 N.E.2d 492 The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Waverly LINDSEY and Alfonso Norris, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 16 A.D.2d 805, 228 N.Y.S.2d 427.
The defendants were convicted of (1) felonious sale of a narcotic drug on October 4, 1958 in violation of the Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 1751, (2) felonious possession of a narcotic drug with intent to sell on October 4, 1958 in violation of the Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 2, (3) unlawful possession of a narcotic drug on October 4, 1958 as a misdemeanor in violation of Penal Law, § 1751-a, and (4) conspiracy to illegally possess and sell a quantity of marijuana as a misdemeanor in violation of the Penal Law, § 580. The Richmond County Court, James C. Crane, J., entered judgments, and the defendants appealed.
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment on the law and the facts, dismissed the indictment, exonerated bail, and held that County Court should have applied the rule that one who acts solely as agent of buyer cannot be convicted of crime of selling narcotics, where it clearly appeared that defendants acted as agents for police officer, who had disguised his real identity, and received no financial profit from single sale involving only five dollars. Beldock, P. J., dissented.
The People of the State of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant.
John M. Braisted, Jr., Staten Island (Pasquale E. Di Vernieri, Staten Island, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Orders affirmed.
All concur except DYE and SCILEPPI, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse and to order a new trial upon the ground that the proof was sufficient to establish that defendants were aiding and abetting the sellers (Penal Law, § 2).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lam Lek Chong
...v. Branch, 13 A.D.2d 714, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535; see, also, People v. Buster, 286 App.Div. 1141, 145 N.Y.S.2d 437; People v. Lindsey, 12 N.Y.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956, 189 N.E.2d 492; People v. Wright, 15 N.Y.2d 555, 254 N.Y.S.2d 368, 202 N.E.2d 910; People v. Bray, 15 N.Y.2d 637, 255 N.Y.S.2d 86......
-
People v. Roche
...affd. 15 N.Y.2d 555, 254 N.Y.S.2d 368, 202 N.E.2d 910, with People v. Lindsey, 16 A.D.2d 805, 228 N.Y.S.2d 427, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956, 189 N.E.2d 492). If he is in fact interested in the outcome, either by ownership of the property or by an agency relationship with the selle......
-
People v. Sierra
...People v. Johnston, 47 A.D.2d 897, 900, 366 N.Y.S.2d 198, 202; People v. Lindsey, 16 A.D.2d 805, 228 N.Y.S.2d 427; affd. 12 N.Y.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956, 189 N.E.2d 492; People v. Branch, 13 A.D.2d 714, 213 N.Y.S.2d 535). The underlying theorization is that a person, who acts solely on beha......
-
People v. Jenkins
...that he was acting as an agent of the informant Pat Adams (cf. People v. Lindsey, 16 A.D.2d 805, 228 N.Y.S.2d 427, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 956, 189 N.E.2d 492) and handled the drugs only as a favor to her. Doubt was cast upon this defense by the testimony of one of Daniel's custom......