People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camacho

47 A.D.2d 527, 362 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8584

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 6, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 527 (People v. Camacho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Camacho, 47 A.D.2d 527, 362 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 7, 1973, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the first degree (Penal Law, former § 220.23), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a prison term of 15 years to life. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and indictment dismissed. When possession of contraband is the crime charged, the possession must be conclusively shown. “ The crime of possessing dangerous drugs requires a physical or constructive possession with actual knowledge of the nature of the possessed substance” (People v. Beisman, 29 N Y 2d 278, 285). From the actual or constructive possession, knowledge may be inferred (id.). And, while the possession need not be exclusive, i.e., the contraband may be jointly possessed (People v. Handford, 40 A D 2d 529), the defendant’s constructive control must [528]*528be established. (People v. Santiago, 45 A D 2d 1041). Two policemen on robbery patrol testified that they observed appellant in the company of another who held a brown paper bag later analyzed to contain heroin. The policemen’s suspicions were aroused by the bag (in their experience such ordinary bags are used to carry burglary tools), the location in which the men were observed, and the men’s failure to gain entrance to the house from the doorway at which they stood. Suspecting that a crime was in the offing, the policemen asked the men to identify themselves (GPL 140.50). At this point, with appellant 10 feet away from the codefendant, the latter dropped the bag out of sight. The testimony failed to establish that appellant was in constructive possession of the contraband so as to then imply knowledge. His acts were as consonant with innocence as with guilt, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction (People v. Patella, 41 A D 2d 954). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 7, 1973, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the first degree (Penal Law, former § 220.23), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a prison term of 15 years to life. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and indictment dismissed. When possession of contraband is the crime charged, the possession must be conclusively shown. “ The crime of possessing dangerous drugs requires a physical or constructive possession with actual knowledge of the nature of the possessed substance” (People v. Beisman, 29 N Y 2d 278, 285). From the actual or constructive possession, knowledge may be inferred (id.). And, while the possession need not be exclusive, i.e., the contraband may be jointly possessed (People v. Handford, 40 A D 2d 529), the defendant’s constructive control must [528]*528be established. (People v. Santiago, 45 A D 2d 1041). Two policemen on robbery patrol testified that they observed appellant in the company of another who held a brown paper bag later analyzed to contain heroin. The policemen’s suspicions were aroused by the bag (in their experience such ordinary bags are used to carry burglary tools), the location in which the men were observed, and the men’s failure to gain entrance to the house from the doorway at which they stood. Suspecting that a crime was in the offing, the policemen asked the men to identify themselves (GPL 140.50). At this point, with appellant 10 feet away from the codefendant, the latter dropped the bag out of sight. The testimony failed to establish that appellant was in constructive possession of the contraband so as to then imply knowledge. His acts were as consonant with innocence as with guilt, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction (People v. Patella, 41 A D 2d 954). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 527, 362 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camacho-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack