People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 11 March 2002 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>LEROY WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested and charged with conspiracy in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, as the result of a police investigation into alleged drug trafficking in Queens. He was tried jointly with a codefendant, Uniko Carson. Two other codefendants pleaded guilty prior to trial. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence at trial, the trial court dismissed the charges of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The jury found the defendant guilty of the only remaining count against him, namely, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.
The defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the evidence regarding the conspiracy charge, which was ultimately dismissed by the trial court, tainted the jury's consideration of the remaining count, of which he was convicted. We disagree. In determining whether an error in the proceedings relating to one count requires reversal of convictions on other jointly-tried counts, the paramount consideration "is whether there is a `reasonable possibility' that the evidence supporting the tainted counts influenced the jury's guilty verdict on the remaining counts in a `meaningful way'" (People v Doshi, 93 NY2d 499, 505, quoting People v Baghai-Kermani, 84 NY2d 525, 532).
Much of the evidence that was introduced to prove the conspiracy, and which the defendant claims was prejudicial, would have been admissible in support of the charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree in any event, regardless of the conspiracy count. Moreover, the evidence that pertained to the drug sale involving the defendant was easily separable from any evidence relating to the conspiracy (see, People v Doshi, supra at 505-506; People v Brown, 83 NY2d 791, 794).
Further, the evidence of the individual sale of cocaine by the defendant was very strong. Since there was no reasonable possibility that the jury verdict on the drug sale was influenced by any evidence that pertained to the conspiracy count, there was no prejudicial spillover, and the defendant's claims to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shepard
...314 N.E.2d 413 ; People v. Cruz, 21 A.D.3d 967, 801 N.Y.S.2d 65 ; People v. Hines, 3 A.D.3d 580, 771 N.Y.S.2d 164 ; People v. Williams, 292 A.D.2d 474, 475, 740 N.Y.S.2d 348 ; People v. Forino, 287 A.D.2d 519, 731 N.Y.S.2d 81 ). Here, the County Court's Sandoval ruling was a provident exerc......
-
People v. Fletcher
...N.Y.S.2d 870 ; People v. Castellano, 284 A.D.2d 406, 407, 726 N.Y.S.2d 281 ), and in any event, without merit (see People v. Williams, 292 A.D.2d 474, 475, 740 N.Y.S.2d 348 ).In determining whether an error in the proceedings relating to one count requires reversal of a conviction on anothe......
-
People v. Allen
...otherwise entirely admissible in support of the manslaughter count, suggesting an absence of spillover prejudice (see People v. Williams, 292 A.D.2d 474, 475, 740 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2d Dept.2002] ; see also People v. Bulgin, 105 A.D.3d 551, 551, 964 N.Y.S.2d 19 [1st Dept.2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y......
-
People v. Townsend
...credibility, and thus the court's Sandoval ruling was proper ( see People v. Hines, 3 A.D.3d 580, 771 N.Y.S.2d 164; People v. Williams, 292 A.D.2d 474, 475, 740 N.Y.S.2d 348; People v. Clarke, 265 A.D.2d 566, 696 N.Y.S.2d 879). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair70 A.D......