New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

A confidential informant (CI) contacted defendant M, and offered him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and/or cash. M allegedly accepted the offer and engaged the three codefendants to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the CI to tell the defendants that the robbery location was at 1981 Sedgwick Avenue in the Bronx. On or about 25 October 2004, it was alleged that the CI and the four defendants loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to the said location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts of the City of New York voted for an indictment against the defendants charging them with four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (2); four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.02 (4); and two counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree, in violation of Penal Law § 105.10 (1).

The defendants filed omnibus discovery motions. The People in response supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination pursuant to CPL 210.30 (2). After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions: (a) in light of the fact that the indictment did not contain a single narcotics-related charge, whether the Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts has subject matter jurisdiction?, and (b) assuming for the sake of argument it has, whether it also has geographic jurisdiction?

Continue reading

People v. McKenzie

The Court Discusses Dismissal of a Lesser Offence where it was included in a Greater Offense

The defendant appealed his conviction of one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree pursuant to section 220.39 of the Penal Law, three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees in pursuant to section 220.26 and 220.03 of the Penal Law and unlawful possession of marijuana pursuant to section 221.05 Penal Law. The defendant was sentenced to one year on the seventh degree count of possession, concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years on the third degree count of possession and sale and $100 fine for unlawful possession of marijuana. The defendant’s conviction stemmed from the sale of a glassine envelope that was witnessed by two police officers. The police officers who witnessed the transaction recovered the envelope containing a bag of heroin. Further, a paper bag which the defendant possessed contained 19 glassine envelope of heroin along with a small quantity of marijuana.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the events leading to defendant’s conviction trace back to December 5, 1974 when a young man with an unsavory drug history, was arrested by the New York State Police in Steuben County for possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, a class A-2 felony punishable by a 15-year to life term. At the time of his apprehension, he was on bail pending an appeal from a 1973 conviction, based on a guilty plea for possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree, for which he had been sentenced to an indeterminate term of zero to three years at the New York Correctional Facility at Attica.

A New York Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, the young man, who at defendant’s trial admitted to being an inveterate user of drugs, including amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, marihuana and heroin, and a seller for profit to maintain his habit, was interviewed after his arrest on December 5, 1974 at the New York State Police substation at Painted Post. As found as a matter of fact by the trial court, during this questioning, an investigator of the New York State Police struck him with such force as to knock him out of a chair, then kicked him, resulting in a cutting of his mouth and forehead, and shortly thereafter threatened to shoot him. He testified that this abuse was administered because he refused to answer a question, that when struck his glasses flew off, that he was kicked in the ribs when down, that a chair was thrown at him, that he was also threatened with being hurled down a flight of steps, and that one of two uniformed State troopers who witnessed these events said, “I may as well forget about it. They would swear that I fell coming in the substation on the steps.”

A New York Felony Lawyer said that, following his seizure on December 5, 1974, the young man was held without bail at the Steuben County Jail until December 24, when he was released. By December 23, one of the officers involved in his case had received a lab report showing that the capsules found on the young man, which were the basis for his class A-2 felony charge and which had been purchased from defendant, were not controlled substances at all. Rather than being amphetamines of a type referred to on the street as “Black Beauties”, they were in fact nothing more pernicious than caffeine. However, he was not told of this until sometime later, at the trial of this matter after he had been used by the police as an informant in this case. This is a criminal situation.

Continue reading

People v. Carmack

Court Discusses the Prejudicial Effect of Cross-examination by the Prosecution

The defendant was charged with criminally selling heroin to an undercover agent. The defendant was arrested after he was observed by two police officers from a distance but the details of the sale were only supplied by the defendant and the undercover agent who had a criminal record. Prior to the trial a Sandoval Hearing was requested by the defendant to determine the parts of the defendant’s criminal record the prosecution could mention during cross-examination if the defendant were to testify at the trial. It was decided that the prosecution was permitted to question the defendant about his arrest which charged him of possession of hypodermic instrument which was later dismissed without prejudice by the District Attorney. The prosecution was also permitted to question the defendant on a charge of possession of a weapon and a charge for attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug. The defendant testified at his trial about his prior convictions of possession of weapons and attempted possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution cross-examined the defendant on his drug habits such as his history of addiction and the cost of his drug habits which led to the defendant impeaching himself. The prosecution’s questions led the jury to adopt an inference of guilt from his testimony during their cross-examination. As a result, the defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance (heroin) in the third degree. The defendant appealed his convicted on the ground that the prosecution’s cross-examination led to the jury adopting an impermissible inference of guilty as a result of his testimony.

Defendant is charged with Attempted Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, and Criminal Marijuana Possession in the Fifth Degree, both Class B Misdemeanors, as well as Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, a violation.

A New York Unlawful Possession of Marijuana lawyer said that the People offered the testimony of two witnesses, both police officers. The Defense offered no testimony, but did place into evidence two photographs of the location where Defendant was arrested.

Based upon the testimonial evidence offered by the People at the hearing, this Court finds both Officers not credible. The People have therefore failed to establish probable cause for Defendant’s arrest. The evidence collected by the police must be suppressed.

Continue reading

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the evidence presented herein, when viewed, as it must be, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was legally sufficient to enable the members of the jury to have determined that the essential elements of the crime had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, including the fact that defendant was in constructive possession of the cocaine in question. In that regard, the drugs were recovered from a vehicle which he had been observed driving a week earlier, for which he possessed the registration and insurance card in his pocket and which he was standing beside when apprehended. According to defendant’s parole officer, Patricia Street, she visited his home on April 22, 1988, and noticed two cars in the backyard, one of which was black and highly decorated with headers and gold paint designs. The following month, on May 11, 1988, she was walking near her office on 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan when she spotted defendant driving a two-door car with license plate number “ASW 96”. Although the automobile was now red, Street believed that it might be the same vehicle she had noticed in defendant’s yard because it was decorated in the same elaborate manner. Moreover, as she approached her office, she saw the car which defendant had just been driving parked in a nearby parking lot.

A New York Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, defendant, who was scheduled to make a regular visit that day, was waiting for her when she reached her office. A computer check of the subject vehicle disclosed that it was registered to the owner but had not been reported stolen and that defendant’s driver’s license had been suspended in 1984. At his next appointment on May 18, 1988, defendant claimed, in response to Street’s inquiry, that on both that day and on May 11th, he had taken the subway to her office. In any event, at the conclusion of the meeting, which lasted from approximately 4:00 P.M. to 5:50 P.M., he immediately proceeded to the adjacent parking lot where Parole Officer observed him heading directly to the passenger side of a red Camaro whose license plate number was “ASW 96”. The Parole Officer and other parole officers arrested him as he stood beside the automobile conversing with a woman who was sitting in the passenger seat. A package containing vials of cocaine was discovered on the floor on the driver’s side of the car.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is guilt of drug possession.

Continue reading

A man was sentenced as a youthful criminal offender and five years probation upon his guilty plea to robbery in the second degree. Afterward, the probation department filed a declaration of delinquency and specifications alleging that the man had violated the terms and conditions of his probationary sentence by knowingly and unlawfully selling a narcotic drug. The same criminal allegation led to the man’s indictment for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Subsequently, he has pleaded not guilty to both allegations.

On the motion filed, the man contends that all proceedings on the violation of probation must be held in abeyance pending resolution of the charges in the indictment.

Sources revealed that a former justice held that a judicial declaration of delinquency and the issuance of a bench warrant for a probationer’s arrest are not authorized upon a mere allegation or showing that the probationer has been arrested for a new offense.

Continue reading