People v. Campbell
| Citation | 126 N.Y.S.3d 727,185 A.D.3d 717 |
| Decision Date | 08 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2017–12998,Ind. No. 36/17 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Jason CAMPBELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
185 A.D.3d 717
126 N.Y.S.3d 727
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,
v.
Jason CAMPBELL, Appellant.
2017–12998
Ind. No. 36/17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—January 28, 2020
July 8, 2020
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (William B. Carney of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara Gillespie, and Michael Bierce of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dena E. Douglas, J.), rendered November 8, 2017, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), petit larceny, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree under counts three and four of the indictment, and vacating the sentences imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and a new trial is ordered on those counts of the indictment.
On January 1, 2017, the defendant allegedly stole a bicycle from outside of a deli. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was arrested, and upon searching the defendant, police officers allegedly found, among other things, a "white powdery substance" and a "hard tan substance," both of which later tested positive for the presence of
cocaine. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of, inter alia, one count of petit larceny and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ramis
...was compared with a "known" standard, the People must establish the accuracy of the standard as a reliable norm (People v Campbell, 185 A.D.3d 717, 719; see People v Rayford, 80 A.D.3d 780, 781; People v Wicks, 122 A.D.2d 239). In the absence of such evidence, a proper foundation has not be......
-
Shapiro v. Town of Ramapo
...the greater should be the court's scrutiny of the plaintiff's motive[ ]" ( Kane v. Kane, 163 A.D.2d 568, 570, 558 N.Y.S.2d 627 ).126 N.Y.S.3d 727 The object of these actions is to prevent Scenic from proceeding with the development it had planned for its property. The prior determinations o......
-
Documents
...development agreement could not be offered at trial as it was precluded by application of the Dead Man’s Statute. People v. Campbell , 185 A.D.3d 717, 126 N.Y.S.3d 727 (2d Dept. 2020). Police officer’s cell phone recording of security camera footage was admissible where the prosecution suff......
-
Expert witnesses
...intoxicated was inadmissible as it was based on mere speculation “unencumbered by any true facts or data.” Cocaine People v. Campbell, 185 A.D.3d 717, 126 N.Y.S.3d 727 (2d Dept. 2020). Expert’s cocaine analysis was inadmissible because it was based solely on a comparison to an unverified kn......
-
Documents
...document to the ultimate issue of the case, the stricter the foundational requirements regarding unavailability. People v. Campbell , 185 A.D.3d 717, 126 N.Y.S.3d 727 (2d Dept. 2020). Police oicer’s cell phone recording of security camera footage was admissible where the prosecution suicien......
-
Expert witnesses
...intoxicated was inadmissible as it was based on mere speculation “unencumbered by any true facts or data.” Cocaine People v. Campbell, 185 A.D.3d 717, 126 N.Y.S.3d 727 (2d Dept. 2020). Expert’s cocaine analysis was inadmissible because it was based solely on a comparison to an unveriied kno......