People v. Ponder

• Decision Date: 11 February 2021
• Docket Number: KA 15-01496,29
• Citation: 141 N.Y.S.3d 618,191 A.D.3d 1409
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Keith L. PONDER, Also Known as Keith Ponders, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

191 A.D.3d 1409

141 N.Y.S.3d 618

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Keith L. PONDER, Also Known as Keith Ponders, Defendant-Appellant.

29

KA 15-01496

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: February 11, 2021

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (SARAH NAGEL MILLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the facts, the indictment against defendant is dismissed and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for proceedings pursuant to CPL 470.45.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16 [1] ), one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (§ 220.09 [1]), one count of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree (§ 221.20), and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [2], [3]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to his constructive possession of drugs and other items recovered from the apartment in which he was arrested following the execution of a search warrant. We agree.

Where there is no evidence that the defendant actually possessed the controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, the People are required to establish that the defendant "exercised ‘dominion or control’ over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found or over the person from whom the contraband is seized" ( People v. Manini , 79 N.Y.2d 561, 573, 584 N.Y.S.2d 282, 594 N.E.2d 563 [1992] ; see Penal Law § 10.00 [8] ; People v. Williams , 162 A.D.3d 1544, 1545, 77 N.Y.S.3d 592 [4th Dept. 2018] ). The People may establish constructive possession by circumstantial evidence (see People v. Torres , 68 N.Y.2d 677, 678-679, 505 N.Y.S.2d 595, 496 N.E.2d 684 [1986] ; People v. Boyd , 145 A.D.3d 1481, 1481-1482, 43 N.Y.S.3d 641 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 947, 54 N.Y.S.3d 377, 76 N.E.3d 1080 [2017] ), but a defendant's mere presence in the area in which contraband is discovered is insufficient to establish constructive possession (see Boyd , 145 A.D.3d at 1482, 43 N.Y.S.3d 641 ).

Here, we conclude that an acquittal would not have been unreasonable and, upon our independent review of the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we further conclude that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence inasmuch as Supreme Court was not justified in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed the drugs or drug paraphernalia in question (see generally People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Although defendant was present in the apartment at the time the police executed the search warrant, no other evidence was presented "to establish that defendant was an occupant of the apartment or that he regularly frequented it" ( People v. Swain , 241 A.D.2d 695, 696, 660 N.Y.S.2d 199 [3d...