People v. Doleo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Doleo

261 A.D.2d 194, 691 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247

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

DecidedMay 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 194 (People v. Doleo) 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. Doleo, 261 A.D.2d 194, 691 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered April 8, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree [195]*195(three counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, 3 to 6 years, and three terms of 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant’s testimony. There was overwhelming evidence of constructive possession (see, People v Bundy, 90 NY2d 918), consisting of defendant’s acknowledged residence in the subject apartment for over a week prior to the arrest, his possession of the keys, the presence of his belongings including a beeper, and the presence of drugs and paraphernalia throughout the apartment, including a substantial amount of packaging materials and equipment in open view. There was ample evidence supporting the then-applicable requirement of defendant’s knowledge of the weight of drugs possessed, where three times the statutory threshold amount was present, along with several scales for weighing drugs (see, People v Sanchez, 86 NY2d 27, 33-34).

The court properly admitted expert testimony concerning the manner in which the various paraphernalia found in the apartment were suitable for use in packaging drugs, as well as the expert’s opinion that the apartment in question was being used for the packaging and distribution of drugs, because this evidence was relevant to the issues presented at trial and beyond the knowledge of the average juror, while not constituting an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact (see, People v Polanco, 169 AD2d 551, lv denied 77 NY2d 965). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Lemer, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered April 8, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree [195]*195(three counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, 3 to 6 years, and three terms of 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant’s testimony. There was overwhelming evidence of constructive possession (see, People v Bundy, 90 NY2d 918), consisting of defendant’s acknowledged residence in the subject apartment for over a week prior to the arrest, his possession of the keys, the presence of his belongings including a beeper, and the presence of drugs and paraphernalia throughout the apartment, including a substantial amount of packaging materials and equipment in open view. There was ample evidence supporting the then-applicable requirement of defendant’s knowledge of the weight of drugs possessed, where three times the statutory threshold amount was present, along with several scales for weighing drugs (see, People v Sanchez, 86 NY2d 27, 33-34).

The court properly admitted expert testimony concerning the manner in which the various paraphernalia found in the apartment were suitable for use in packaging drugs, as well as the expert’s opinion that the apartment in question was being used for the packaging and distribution of drugs, because this evidence was relevant to the issues presented at trial and beyond the knowledge of the average juror, while not constituting an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact (see, People v Polanco, 169 AD2d 551, lv denied 77 NY2d 965). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Lemer, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 194, 691 N.Y.S.2d 389, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-doleo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack