People v. Cohen

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Cohen

374 N.E.2d 362, 43 N.Y.2d 872, 403 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1798

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 374 N.E.2d 362 (People v. Cohen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cohen, 374 N.E.2d 362, 43 N.Y.2d 872, 403 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1798 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

The testimony of the prosecution in this circumstantial case, when viewed in its most favorable light (People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29), indicates that the defendant was walking down the street with someone who was to later enter into a transaction with an undercover police officer for the sale of heroin. There was no proof that the defendant was involved in any conversation with regard to the transaction and, in fact, he *873 was not present when and precisely where the alleged sale took place. The inference which may be drawn from the additional proof that he was observed shortly thereafter receiving money from his codefendant is not sufficient to supply the minimum required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are too many reasonable hypotheses which would explain the receipt of money and which are consistent with innocence (People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53; People v Williams, 35 NY2d 783).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

The testimony of the prosecution in this circumstantial case, when viewed in its most favorable light (People v Benzinger, 36 NY2d 29), indicates that the defendant was walking down the street with someone who was to later enter into a transaction with an undercover police officer for the sale of heroin. There was no proof that the defendant was involved in any conversation with regard to the transaction and, in fact, he *873 was not present when and precisely where the alleged sale took place. The inference which may be drawn from the additional proof that he was observed shortly thereafter receiving money from his codefendant is not sufficient to supply the minimum required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are too many reasonable hypotheses which would explain the receipt of money and which are consistent with innocence (People v Montanez, 41 NY2d 53; People v Williams, 35 NY2d 783).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 N.E.2d 362, 43 N.Y.2d 872, 403 N.Y.S.2d 463, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cohen-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack