People v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 30 June 1988
• Citation: 530 N.Y.S.2d 859,141 A.D.2d 982
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edmond E. TAYLOR, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 859

530 N.Y.S.2d 859

141 A.D.2d 982

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edmond E. TAYLOR, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

June 30, 1988.

David Seth Michaels, Spencertown, for appellant.

Nancy Davis Snyder, Valatie, for respondent.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, WEISS, LEVINE and MERCURE, JJ.

WEISS, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered April 10, 1987, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

On the evening of October 16, 1986, during an undercover investigation of illegal drug activity in the City of Hudson, Columbia County, defendant ostensibly sold two packets of cocaine to an informant for $50, paid in marked currency. Although the surveillance officers did not observe the actual sale, the informant was wearing a transmitter and the transaction was recorded. At the time, the police were aware of an outstanding harassment warrant against defendant, but as explained by Police Chief James Dolan, did not effectuate an immediate arrest for fear of jeopardizing the investigation. Shortly after midnight, on October 17, 1986, two uniformed police officers approached defendant in the vicinity of the described sale to execute the harassment warrant. When asked if he was Edmond Taylor defendant replied "no", but then produced a wallet containing his official driver's license. As defendant was placed under arrest, he dropped a plastic bag containing 16 small packets of cocaine. The marked currency the informant had used was also found on defendant's person. Thereafter, defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, based solely on the cocaine seized October 17, 1986. ^* He was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 7 to 14 years. This appeal ensued.

Defendant maintains that the admission into evidence of the October 16, 1986 sale of cocaine to the informant, which occurred approximately one hour before the incident in question, was reversible error. We disagree. In People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241-243, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 the Court of Appeals recently reiterated the rules concerning the admission of uncharged crimes into evidence ( see, People v. Ingram, 71 N.Y.2d 474, 479, 527 N.Y.S.2d 363, 522 N.E.2d 439). In essence, such evidence must not only be probative of a material element of the crime charged, but, on balance, the probative value must outweigh the potential for prejudice ( People v. Alvino, supra, 71 N.Y.2d at 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808; see, People v. Johnson, 130 A.D.2d 804, 806, 514 N.Y.S.2d 830, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 704, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1039, 513 N.E.2d 716). Here, defendant was charged with violating Penal Law § 220.16 based on his possession of cocaine at the time of his arrest. Proof of intent to sell is a required element of that crime (Penal Law § 220.16). Because the mere fact of possession of the quantity involved here does not clearly indicate whether defendant held the drugs for sale or for personal use, the evidence of the prior sale to the informant was legally admissible to establish the element of intent ( see, People v. Alvino, supra, 71 N.Y.2d at 245, 527 N.Y.S.2d 363, 522 N.E.2d 439; People v. Johnson, supra, 130 A.D.2d at 806, 514 N.Y.S.2d 830). To be distinguished are cases involving a criminal sale of drugs from which intent may readily be inferred from the sale itself ( see, People v. Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111, 500 N.Y.S.2d 635, 491 N.E.2d 1092). Despite the factual similarity and temporal proximity between the uncharged criminal activity and the crime at issue, we perceive no abuse of discretion in County Court's assessment that the probative value of this evidence outweighed the resulting prejudice ( see, People v. Ingram, supra, 71 N.Y.2d at 481, 527 N.Y.S.2d 363, 522 N.E.2d 439). While County Court did not give any limiting instructions to the jury when the informant testified, defendant neither requested such an instruction nor registered any objection. Moreover, the court did provide a proper instruction in its jury charge and again upon a request of the jury during deliberations ( cf., People v. Bolling, 120 A.D.2d 601, 502 N.Y.S.2d 77, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 665, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 496 N.E.2d 688). Therefore, the admission into evidence of defendant's sale of cocaine to the informant did not constitute reversible error.

Defendant also urges that the People's failure to timely disclose details concerning the October 16, 1986 drug sale and County Court's failure to grant a continuance once this information was revealed at a Ventimiglia hearing on the verge of...