People v. Jackson
| Citation | 382 N.Y.S.2d 736,39 N.Y.2d 64,346 N.E.2d 537 |
| Parties | , 346 N.E.2d 537 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kelly JACKSON, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1976 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Stanley Neustadter, Robert B. Sherman and William E. Hellerstein, New York City, for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty. (Norman Barclay, Peter L. Zimroth, Robert M. Pitler and Steven R. Kartagener, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
On the morning of October 14, 1971, Officers Hart, Wooley and Redmond established an observation post in an empty second-floor classroom. The focal point of their surveillance was the sidewalk in front of 305 and 307 West 127 th Street, approximately 300 feet away. Three other officers waited in an unmarked police car, remaining in contact via walkie-talkie and ready to respond to the observation team's instructions.
Patrolman Hart, using the team's only pair of power binoculars, saw appellant, Kelly Jackson, arrive in front of 305 West 127th Street accompanied by Stephanie Watson. Ms. Watson sat down on the stoop of the apartment, 8 to 12 feet away from where appellant Jackson stood. At 11:35 a.m., Hart observed an unidentified man approach, speak with and give money to Jackson, who immediately turned toward Mr. Watson, raised his right hand and pointed two fingers in the air. The unidentified man walked over to Ms. Watson, was handed two of the glassine envelopes which she was holding in a hard-covered Marlboro cigarette box and walked off. Patrolman Hart told Patrolman Wooley to transmit a description of the buyer and the direction in which he was walking to the back-up team, which was done, but the officers in the unmarked car were unsuccessful in their attempt to apprehend the buyer. Ten minutes later, a similar interchange was observed, but on this occasion Jackson's gesture was with three fingers, and three envelopes passed. Again the back-up team failed to seize the buyer.
At approximately 12:25 p.m., Patrolman Hart observed a young man, later identified as Kenneth Williams, walk up to defendant. After conversing, Williams hand the defendant money. Hart's testimony as to what next occurred differs on cross-examination from that given on direct as to which hand Jackson used to signal Ms. Watson. On direct, Hart testified the right, on cross the left. Upon further questioning, Hart indicated that he was 'uncertain' as to whether he saw defendant's finger raised in a signal to Stephanie Watson and stated that his most recent recollection was that the defendant's body had partially blocked his view of the signal. After the signal was given, Williams approached Ms. Watson and was handed a glassine envelope which he placed in his right trouser pocket before beginning to walk towards St. Nicholas Avenue. In addition to alerting the back-up team, Patrolman Hart left his observation post and followed Williams up the street. At the corner of St. Nicholas Avenue and West 128th Street and in the presence of two members of the back-up team, Hart stepped up, identified himself to Williams, removed the glassine envelope from Williams' right trouser pocket and placed him under arrest. Returning to 127th Street, the officers then arrested Kelly Jackson and Stephanie Watson.
Appellant's primary objection is directed toward the testimony describing the prior uncharged narcotics sales which, he argues, had no probative purpose and served only to establish a criminal disposition. While it is true that evidence of unconnected, uncharged criminal conduct is inadmissible if the purpose is to establish a predisposition to commit the crime charged (People v. Fiore, 34 N.Y.2d 81, 84, 356 N.Y.S.2d 38, 41, 312 N.E.2d 174, 176; People v. Dales, 309 N.Y. 97, 101, 127 N.E.2d 829, 830; Coleman v. People, 55 N.Y. 81, 90), such evidence may be admissible if offered for a relevant purpose other than to establish criminal propensity (People v. Fiore, supra; see, e.g., People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gonzalez
...U.S. 543, 548--549, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797; People v. Jackson, 46 A.D.2d 816, 817, 360 N.Y.S.2d 517, 518, affd., 39 N.Y.2d 64, 382 N.Y.S.2d 736, 346 N.E.2d 537; People v. Talbot, 44 A.D.2d 641, 353 N.Y.S.2d 842; People v. Stepps, 31 A.D.2d 59, 62, 296 N.Y.S.2d 729, 731). Consent to s......
-
People v. Alvino
...knowledge, (4) common scheme or plan, or (5) identity of the defendant. The list, of course, is not exhaustive (People v. Jackson, 39 N.Y.2d 64, 382 N.Y.S.2d 736, 346 N.E.2d 537). Even when admissible for such purposes, however, the evidence may not be received unless its probative value ex......
-
People v. Kampshoff
...and its probative value is deemed to outweigh the danger of prejudice.' A recent Court of Appeals decision (People v. Jackson, 39 N.Y.2d 64, 382 N.Y.S.2d 736, 346 N.E.2d 537, decided March 25, 1976) dealt with the admissibility of evidence of prior uncharged narcotics sales for the purpose ......
-
People v. Sims
...103, 24 L.Ed.2d 96), the absence of mistake or accident (People v. Dales, supra ), a common scheme or plan (People v. Jackson, 39 N.Y.2d 64, 382 N.Y.S.2d 736, 346 N.E.2d 537), or the identity of the guilty party (People v. Allweiss, supra ). Nevertheless, even where evidence of the other cr......