New York

Published on: February 3, 2013

Student Suspended for Marijuana Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

Outside of the guidance counselor’s office at the high school, a student was found sleeping. His skin was gray and he appeared to be extremely sick. The student was transported to the hospital and it was determined that he had consumed marijuana while on his lunch break. The student claimed that he had received the marijuana from the appellant right before lunch at her locker.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was questioned and admitted that she gave him the marijuana. She did not say where the exchange took place. The school contacted her parents and told both the appellant and her parents that an extended suspension would be recommended.

The student who took the marijuana dropped out of school. During the suspension hearing the appellant stated that she gave the other student marijuana, but the exchange did not take place on campus, although she did state that she had taken the marijuana from her locker. The school board found her guilty of possession and she was suspended.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Defendant Contends 6th Amendment Rights Were Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants in this case were convicted of one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellants argue that the Speedy Trial Act as well as the 6th amendment barred them from being prosecuted. The appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that was submitted against them.

Case Fact

The appellants were indicted and convicted based on a reverse sting operation conducted by a DEA agent acting undercover. The agent used a confidential informant who advised people within the community that she knew someone that wanted to sell marijuana.

Published on: February 3, 2013

Defendant Charged with Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

by Stephen Bilkis

This case deals with a juvenile who was charged with marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia. An adjudicatory hearing was held and the court determined that the evidence was enough for the allegation of possessing drug paraphernalia, but dismissed the charge of possession of marijuana. The juvenile is appealing the ruling that did not dismiss the possession of drug paraphernalia stating that the trial court made an error.

Case Background

A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said while at school the juvenile’s backpack was searched by a school police officer. The officer found a plastic case that had a green leafy substance inside. The container also had a glass ear dropper that had been turned into a pipe. The makeshift pipe had residue on it.

Published on: February 2, 2013

Court Discusses Constructive Possession in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The case before the court is one of appeal from a conviction of possessing more than five grams of marijuana. The appellant was charged with possessing more than five grams of marijuana (marijuana possession), possessing hashish, and possessing PCP. The appellant was acquitted for the possession of hashish and PCP charges.

Case Background

In April, officers executed a search warrant of the home that is owned by the appellant. The residence had been under surveillance for about a year before the warrant was issued. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that during that year the appellant had been seen coming and going from the house on several occasions.

Published on: February 1, 2013

Defendant to Multiple Criminal Charges was a Police Officer

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with several crimes and was found guilty for the commission of said crimes that included grand larceny, bribery receiving, official misconduct, and sale of illegal drug, criminal possession of stolen property and unlawfully disposing of a weapon. The accused who was a police officer, being accompanied by another individual, threatened a person that, if the latter did not turn over gun and money he owned, he will be arrested. It was also averred that the appellant took possession of marihuana from an individual whom he did not arrest and sold said marihuana to another. And lastly, it was contended that the indicted police failed to voucher a stolen revolver in his possession, but instead gave it to another without authority. Thus, an appeal was filed before the court to resolve the issue of his conviction to said crimes.

The issues of the appeal were the defendant’s indictment of possession of stolen property and unlawfully disposing the same and the crimes of sale of illegal drug. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the surrounding circumstances of the alleged felony was that the police officer asked another law enforcer, who was an undercover agent of the internal affairs, to keep the “throwaway gun” in his behalf for fear of his possible detention due to the investigations about his police activities being conducted at that time. Although evidence was presented to prove that the subject gun was a stolen property, it cannot show that the convicted police officer had knowledge of the fact that it was indeed a stolen gun. As provided in the statute, the indispensible element for the crime of criminal possession of stolen property was the actual knowledge of the accused that the gun in issue was a subject of theft. This was reiterated in the case of the Supreme Court, to wit “the gravamen of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property is possession of stolen property with knowledge of its stolen character. The element of knowledge of the stolen character of the property is essential.” As such, evidence must be presented before the jury to establish the element of knowledge of the stolen character of the gun by the defendant, otherwise, an indictment for that criminal offense may not stand. No direct evidence was shown to the grand jury to ascertain that the appellant had knowledge that the gun was stolen.

It was noted by the court that there was no instruction given to the jury for considering circumstantial evidence in relation to the crime in question. As decided in several jurisprudence, “the prosecutor wholly failed to instruct the jury as to the requirements of legal insufficiency in a circumstantial evidence case… the failure to instruct the jury on the standard to be applied deprives of legal significance the factual determination implicit in the indictment.”

Published on: January 31, 2013

Court Discusses Constructive Possession in Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is appealing an order that revoked his community control and resulted in a five year prison sentence. The defendant argues that the state did not establish that he had constructive possession of marijuana that was found in a car that he was a passenger in.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was suspected of drug activity and for this reason the police department kept the defendant’s studio apartment under surveillance. The officer watching the apartment saw an unknown couple driving a white car approach the defendant. The couple got out of the car and went inside the apartment with the defendant. When the couple came back out it appeared as if the man had stuffed something inside the front of his pants. All three got into the car, the man drove, the woman sat in the passenger seat, and the defendant rode in the back.

Published on: January 31, 2013

Court Discusses Medical Marijuana Laws

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the United States. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the main question that is presented in this particular case is whether the Congress has the power under article 1 section 8 of the constitution to regulate commerce with several states and foreign nations includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana that is in compliance with the laws of the state of California.

California Marijuana Laws

When it comes to regulation of marijuana, the state of California has been a pioneer. The state was among the first to prohibit the possession and sale of marijuana in 1913 and as of 1996 the state was the first state to authorize marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes.

Published on: January 30, 2013

Defendant Says Insufficient Evidence for Marijuana Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is appealing his conviction for multiple drug charges.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the charges that were made against the defendant come from a drug purchase made by an undercover police officer. The purchase took place inside of a house. The defendant along with another man arrived at the house in the car owned by the defendant. The car was left outside of the home before the arrests occurred.

Published on: January 29, 2013

Drug Crime Defendant Moves for Acquittal for Failure to Prove Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged on several drug related charges including possession of cocaine and heroin, possession of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin possession, with the intent to sell, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was convicted on the charges of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, trafficking cocaine, and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. He was sentenced to five years for the marijuana charge, ten years for the trafficking cocaine charge, and five years for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell.

Case Background

Published on: January 28, 2013

Defendant Contends Insufficient Evidence to Uphold Marjuana Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a jury conviction that charged him with the crime of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon.

Case Background

In July, law officers executed a search warrant on the defendant’s residence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officers testified that the defendant arrived at his home around 9:45 p.m. and got out of his vehicle and went into the house. Not long afterwards another car pulled up and the defendant came out of the house to talk to the driver of the vehicle. After the driver left the officers executed the search warrant of the property.