People v. Siplin
| Decision Date | 01 December 1971 |
| Citation | 327 N.Y.S.2d 854,227 N.E.2d 786,29 N.Y.2d 841 |
| Parties | , 277 N.E.2d 786 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Bernard SIPLIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, George D. Ogden, J.
Leslie A. Bradshaw, Rochester, for appellant.
Jack B. Lazarus, Rochester (Edward J. Spires, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.
By a judgment of the Rochester City Court the defendant was found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor of criminally possessing a hypodermic needle after there was testimony to effect that defendant, who admitted frequenting apartment which he claimed was being rented by his girlfriend with whom he spent several nights a week, gave police consent to search apartment in which they found hypodermic instruments in a dresser drawer containing men's socks and underwear and in the base of a lamp on top of the dresser. The defendant appealed.
The Monroe County Court affirmed and appeal was by permission.
In the Court of Appeals the defendant urged that the evidence was insufficient to show his constructive possession of the narcotics instrument found in apartment. The People urged that the defendant was properly convicted of crime charged on substantial and sufficient evidence.
Order reversed and the complaint dismissed in the following memorandum: The order appealed from should be reversed and the complaint dismissed upon the ground that the guilt of defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt, the proof offered in support of an inference of defendant's possession or control of the apartment falling far short of the standard necessary to establish his constructive possession of the narcotics paraphernalia found there. (See People v. Perry, 2 N.Y.2d 785, 158 N.Y.S.2d 330, 139 N.E.2d 427; People v. Leavitt, 301 N.Y. 113, 92 N.E.2d 915; People v. Schriber, 34 A.D.2d 852, 310 N.Y.S.2d 551, aff'd 29 N.Y.2d 780, 327 N.Y.S.2d 68, 277 N.E.2d 187 (decided November 17, 1971); United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed.2d 210.)
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Robertson
...control over the premises that he could be deemed in constructive possession of the contraband found." See also People v. Siplin, 29 N.Y.2d 841, 327 N.Y.S.2d 854, 277 N.E.2d 786. In evaluating the evidence in this case, three facts seem to me of primary 1. The apartment had been rented some......
-
People v. Buza
...was not overwhelming evidence that defendant exercised dominion and control over the premises (see generally People v. Siplin, 29 N.Y.2d 841, 842, 327 N.Y.S.2d 854, 277 N.E.2d 786 ). Moreover, defendant's conduct during the course of the investigation was equally consistent with a person wh......
-
People v. Pearson
...143 A.D.2d 937, 533 N.Y.S.2d 562; People v. Russell, 34 N.Y.2d 261, 264-265, 357 N.Y.S.2d 415, 313 N.E.2d 732; People v. Siplin, 29 N.Y.2d 841, 327 N.Y.S.2d 854, 277 N.E.2d 786; Penal Law § 10.00[8]; cf., People v. Dawkins, 136 A.D.2d 726, 727, 524 N.Y.S.2d 64 [defendant found standing in k......
-
People v. Hawkins
...circumstantial proof that this defendant had constructive possession of the heroin found in the apartment (see People v. Siplin, 29 N.Y.2d 841, 327 N.Y.S.2d 854, 277 N.E.2d 786; People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285--287, 327 N.Y.S.2d 342, 348--350, 277 N.E.2d 396; People v. Camacho, 47 A.D......