People v. Eustate
| Citation | 697 N.Y.S.2d 260,265 A.D.2d 229 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JOSE EUSTATE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1999 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.
The People presented legally sufficient evidence of defendant's guilt of the crimes charged and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence showed that defendant and the codefendant were the sole occupants of apartment 42 when the police arrived and during the five to fifteen minutes required for the police to prepare for execution of the search warrant, thereby permitting a determination that they shared dominion and control of that apartment, which clearly was used to package drugs for sale, and that they constructively possessed its contents (see, People v Manini, 79 NY2d 561, 573). Since the key to apartment 34, an unoccupied apartment located immediately below, was found amid the drug paraphernalia in apartment 42, and since the jury heard testimony that a stash of drugs is usually kept at a location separate from the selling location, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant and the codefendant shared constructive possession of the contents of the second apartment which, the evidence indicated, contained the stash for the drug selling operation conducted out of apartment 42 (supra). Further, police observation of contraband being thrown from a window of apartment 42 immediately before defendant and the codefendant left the apartment through another window permitted a reasonable inference that defendant was aware of the nature of the contraband and, in light of the obvious nature of the apartment as a drug factory, the jury reasonably rejected defendant's postarrest statement that he was there for social purposes.
The court's explanation to the jury of the room presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) did not serve to shift the burden of proof. Based on the evidence, the charge when viewed as a whole, adequately conveyed the appropriate legal principles to be applied (see, People v Ladd, 89 NY2d 893, 895).
The court responded meaningfully to the jury's question regarding the possible effect of one individual's intent and knowledge upon another individual by rereading its previous, proper instructions regarding accessorial liability, particularly given that the jury did not indicate any dissatisfaction with the court's response (see, People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302-303, cert denied 459 US 847).
We r...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kalabakas
..., 271 A.D.2d 328, 328, 706 N.Y.S.2d 876 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 867, 715 N.Y.S.2d 222, 738 N.E.2d 370 [2000] ; People v. Eustate , 265 A.D.2d 229, 230, 697 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 919, 708 N.Y.S.2d 358, 729 N.E.2d 1157 [2000] ). We discern nothing impermissible with com......
-
People v. Lauriano
...of drugs with intent to sell (see People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, 509 N.Y.S.2d 790, 502 N.E.2d 577 [1986] ; People v. Eustate, 265 A.D.2d 229, 230, 697 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1st Dept. 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 919, 708 N.Y.S.2d 358, 729 N.E.2d 1157 [2000] ; People v. Rivera, 257 A.D.2d 425, 426, ......
-
People v. Randolph
...constructively possessed all of the drugs recovered from what was clearly a drug factory (see, People v Bundy, 90 N.Y.2d 918; People v Eustate, 265 A.D.2d 229 lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 919). In addition to the constructive possession theory, the statutory presumption (Penal Law § 220.25[2]) was p......
- People v. CERANO