People v. Washington
| Decision Date | 20 November 1989 |
| Citation | 155 A.D.2d 635,548 N.Y.S.2d 49 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Victor WASHINGTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis Schaeffer, Hewlett, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and John F. McGlynn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and RUBIN, BALLETTA, and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harris, J.), rendered October 9, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Santagata, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the jury's verdict finding him guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was against the weight of the evidence and also inconsistent with its verdict acquitting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. We disagree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5].
We also conclude that the jury's verdict finding the defendant guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (i.e., with intent to sell) was in no way repugnant to its verdict acquitting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The acquittal could have been reasonably based on the conclusion that a completed sale had not occurred at the time the police intervened.
The record clearly establishes that the police had a reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant had committed, was committing or was about to commit a crime when they first attempted to detain him (see, People v. DeBour, 40 NY2d 210, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). Furthermore, the defendant's subsequent conduct in dropping a clear plastic bag to the ground containing a quantity of "[c]ocaine in crack form"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ibarra v. State
... ... Such reasoning continues today. See People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 81, 305 P.3d 1241, 1245 (2013) ("a property owner who is fraudulently induced to transfer possession of ... See, e.g., Willis, 480 So.2d at 57-58 (Alabama) ; Warner, 801 P.2d at 1188 (Colorado) ; Washington, 548 N.Y.S.2d at 49 (New York). Unlike the majority, I find those well-reasoned opinions more persuasive than two words of dicta from a ... ...
-
People v. Hart
...defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making the statements ( see People v. Washington, 155 A.D.2d 635,appeal denied75 N.Y.2d 925;see also People v. Davis, 55 N.Y.2d 731). However, the record is clear that the statements were voluntarily and spo......
- People v. Washington
-
People v. Lane
...People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617; People v. Martinez, 165 A.D.2d 788, 564 N.Y.S.2d 58; People v. Washington, 155 A.D.2d 635, 548 N.Y.S.2d 49). Moreover, the acquittal could reasonably have been based upon a conclusion by the jury that another individual was pr......