People v. Crosby
| Decision Date | 08 May 1989 |
| Citation | 150 A.D.2d 478,541 N.Y.S.2d 81 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dennis CROSBY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Mitchell J. Briskey, of counsel), for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Nikki Kowalski and Melissa Harrison, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, SPATT and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), rendered November 21, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.
The trial court committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over defense counsel's objection, a verdict sheet containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon (see, CPL 310.20[2], but also the elements of those charges and factual parentheticals with regard to each charge (see, People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33; People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314; People v. Jackson, 148 A.D.2d 750, 539 N.Y.S.2d 482; People v. McKenzie, 148 A.D.2d 472, 539 N.Y.S.2d 20; People v. Gillispie, 144 A.D.2d 482, 533 N.Y.S.2d 981; People v. Valle, 143 A.D.2d 160, 531 N.Y.S.2d 929; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208, 532 N.Y.S.2d 12).
The trial court also committed error by failing to include in its charge on the so-called "drug factory" presumption, the statutory language of Penal Law § 220.25(2) relating to one of the elements necessary to trigger the presumption, i.e., the requirement that "circumstances evincing an intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package or otherwise prepare for sale" be present (see, Penal Law § 220.25[2]. Although no objection to the foregoing omission was made by the defendant, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sotomayer
... ... Durant, 153 A.D.2d 757, 544 N.Y.S.2d 984, 985; People v. Ashlay, 152 A.D.2d 675, 544 N.Y.S.2d 484; People v. Alexander, 152 A.D.2d 587, 543 N.Y.S.2d 504; People v. Pugh, 150 A.D.2d [173 A.D.2d 503] 734, 541 N.Y.S.2d 603; People v. Crosby, 150 A.D.2d 478, 541 N.Y.S.2d 81; People v. King, 150 A.D.2d 497, 541 N.Y.S.2d 97; People v. Conners, 149 A.D.2d 722, 540 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Jackson, 148 A.D.2d 750, 539 N.Y.S.2d 482; People v. Gillispie, 144 A.D.2d 482, 533 N.Y.S.2d 981; People v. Valle, 143 A.D.2d 160, 531 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
-
People v. Alexander
...Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33; People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314; People v. Crosby, App.Div., 541 N.Y.S.2d 81; People v. Gillispie, 144 A.D.2d 482, 533 N.Y.S.2d 981; People v. Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208, 532 N.Y.S.2d 12; People v. Val......
- People v. Colson
-
People v. Crosby
...charge error. This court noted, however, that "the facts have been considered and determined to have been established" (People v. Crosby, 150 A.D.2d 478, 541 N.Y.S.2d 81). The defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third We find no meri......