People v. Dillon

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dillon

663 N.E.2d 319, 87 N.Y.2d 885, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 4753

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 663 N.E.2d 319 (People v. Dillon) 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. Dillon, 663 N.E.2d 319, 87 N.Y.2d 885, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 4753 (N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

During the course of a high-speed automobile chase having its inception in a traffic violation, the pursuing State Trooper observed the passenger in the fleeing vehicle, defendant Dillon, throw two small bags onto the roadway. The chase continued for another 10 to 15 miles until the driver, defendant Hetzel, was eventually stopped. Approximately 3.94 ounces of a white powder containing cocaine and eight hypodermic needles were recovered from the roadside at the point where the bags had been thrown.

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the Grand Jury could have inferred that defendants Dillon and Hetzel had knowledge that the cocaine weighed more than the statutory minimum of an aggregate two ounces, and therefore, County Court erred in reducing count one of the indictment from criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) to criminal possession of *887 a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03).

Given the lesser standards for measuring the sufficiency of Grand Jury instructions (see, People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 454; People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394; see also, CPL 190.30 [7]), we also conclude that the instructions in this case were adequate.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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 affirmed.

During the course of a high-speed automobile chase having its inception in a traffic violation, the pursuing State Trooper observed the passenger in the fleeing vehicle, defendant Dillon, throw two small bags onto the roadway. The chase continued for another 10 to 15 miles until the driver, defendant Hetzel, was eventually stopped. Approximately 3.94 ounces of a white powder containing cocaine and eight hypodermic needles were recovered from the roadside at the point where the bags had been thrown.

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the Grand Jury could have inferred that defendants Dillon and Hetzel had knowledge that the cocaine weighed more than the statutory minimum of an aggregate two ounces, and therefore, County Court erred in reducing count one of the indictment from criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) to criminal possession of *887 a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03).

Given the lesser standards for measuring the sufficiency of Grand Jury instructions (see, People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 454; People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394; see also, CPL 190.30 [7]), we also conclude that the instructions in this case were adequate.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 N.E.2d 319, 87 N.Y.2d 885, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 4753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dillon-ny-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack