People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 16 May 1978 |
| Citation | 404 N.Y.S.2d 865,62 A.D.2d 356 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tom JONES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard N. Spiegler, New York City, of counsel (William E. Hellerstein and William J. Gallagher, New York City), for defendant-appellant.
Norman A. Bloch, New York City, of counsel (Jerrold L. Neugarten, New York City, with him, on brief, Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty.), for respondent.
Before LUPIANO, J. P., and FEIN, MARKEWICH and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The central issue on this appeal concerns the admissibility of police testimony that $831 cash had been found on defendant's person following a search conducted at the police precinct after defendant's arrest. No part of the $55 in recorded "buy money" used by the undercover officers in connection with the purchase of the drug was included in the cash found on defendant's person. Nor did the search reveal any drugs on defendant's person. The undercover officers testified that at the time of the purchase defendant was observed standing in a crowd of from ten to fifteen people, two or three of whom were handing him money in return for glassine envelopes. The arrest was made in the same area about one hour later.
The trial justice, with some reservation, denied defendant's motion to suppress and ruled admissible proof that defendant had been found to have in his possession $831, reasoning that the possession of a large sum of money in cash approximately one hour after the sale confirmed to some extent the identification of defendant. The justice took into consideration the nature of the crime as akin to a business. He found the proof to be of sufficient probative force to outweigh any prejudice to defendant, which the justice believed would not be substantial. The court further found that proof with respect to defendant's possession of the money would offer some aid in explaining why defendant did not have any of the serialized money on his person so soon after the alleged transaction.
We do not agree. Although, as noted by the trial justice, no direct authorities have been cited or found, we have concluded that the testimony was inadmissible. The question is one of relevance. "Evidence is relevant if it is legally probative of some matter to be proved." (People v. Galletti, 55 A.D.2d 154, 156, 391 N.Y.S.2d 109, 111). The testimony that defendant was found to have in his possession some $831 in cash, none of which was "buy money" used by the undercover officers, was irrelevant to any issue in the case. Possession of the money neither confirmed nor aided in the identification of defendant. Moreover, even relevant evidence may be excluded when its prejudicial effect will outweigh its probative value. Admission of this testimony placed before the jury proof of possible other crimes, having no apparent relationship to the crime charged, a single sale.
Precisely because the crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ricketts
...and, consequently, the prosecutor's comments were improper (see People v. Valderama, 161 A.D.2d 820, 556 N.Y.S.2d 669 ; People v. Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356, 357–358, 404 N.Y.S.2d 865 ).In addition, evidence was admitted at trial that the defendant was in possession of the sum of $238 at the time......
-
People v. Ciccarelli
...his arrest or at the time of the sale, is inadmissible" (People v. Whitfield, 144 A.D.2d 915, 534 N.Y.S.2d 25; see, People v. Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356, 357, 404 N.Y.S.2d 865; compare, People v. Wells, 159 A.D.2d 799, 552 N.Y.S.2d 688; People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405, 406, 525 N.Y.S.2d 689, lv. ......
-
People v. McDermott
...bills and some twenties" prior to the search and seizure (cf., People v. Whitfield, 144 A.D.2d 915, 534 N.Y.S.2d 25; People v. Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356, 357, 404 N.Y.S.2d 865). And, although the only in-court identification of defendant made before the close of the People's evidence came from E......
-
People v. Carpenter
...(see, e.g., People v. Valderama, 161 A.D.2d 820, 556 N.Y.S.2d 669; People v. Morales, 133 A.D.2d 90, 518 N.Y.S.2d 437; People v. Jones, 62 A.D.2d 356, 404 N.Y.S.2d 865). However, a determination of the relevancy and potential prejudicial effect of such evidence depends upon the facts of eac......