People v. Jamison
| Decision Date | 15 April 1968 |
| Citation | 29 A.D.2d 973,289 N.Y.S.2d 299 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles JAMISON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. of Westchester County, for respondent; James J. Duggan, Asst. Dist. Atty., of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P.J., and CHRIST, BRENNAN, BENJAMIN and MUNDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered May 20, 1966, affirmed.
It was not error for the trial court to have omitted instructions on the law of agency in narcotics sales. There is no indication whatsoever that defendant was anything other than the principal seller in these transactions (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). Nor was evidence of any overt act other than the sale itself necessary to support the fourth court of the indictment--possession with intent to sell.
Similarly, no error was committed by the admission into evidence of People's Exhibits 2 and 3 (the alleged narcotics bought from defendant), as to which no objection was made, since the chain of identification of the specimen and its unchanged condition from the time it was purchased from defendant until it reached the chemist with seal intact were sufficiently established despite the absence of testimony by postal employees who handled it in the interim (People v. Goedkoop, 26 Misc.2d 785, 202 N.Y.S.2d 498).
The trial court's failure to instruct the jury with respect to the misdemeanor of possession of narcotics did not constitute reversible error in the absence of a request to so charge (see Code Crim.Proc., § 420--a), especially since there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Portanova
...there has been a relaxation of the rule' (People v. Porter, 46 A.D.2d 307, 311, 362 N.Y.S.2d 249, 254; see also, People v. Jamison, 29 A.D.2d 973, 289 N.Y.S.2d 299). Here, the prosecution established with respect to every phone conversation it sought to have admitted, who placed each of the......
-
People v. Porter
...requirement to produce each physical custodian as a witness, there has been a relaxation of the rule (compare People v. Jamison, 29 A.D.2d 973, 289 N.Y.S.2d 299 (postal employees who handled mailed narcotics not called) and People v. Goedkoop, 26 Misc.2d 785, 202 N.Y.S.2d 498, with People v......
-
People v. Blanda
...considerations and reasonable standards of conduct, such as labeling, initialling, cataloging, and safekeeping (People v. Jamison, 29 A.D.2d 973, 289 N.Y.S.2d 299; People v. Peluso, 29 N.Y.2d 605, 324 N.Y.S.2d 404, 273 N.E.2d 134; People v. Herman, 8 Misc.2d 991, 166 N.Y.S.2d 131; People v.......
-
People v. Sundholm
...view of the evidence, therefore, could defendant be deemed to be the agent of the buyer (People v. Carr, 49 A.D.2d 656; People v. Jamison, 29 A.D.2d 973, 289 N.Y.S.2d 299). For this reason the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the law of It remains to be determined wheth......