People v. Donegan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Donegan

112 A.D.2d 747, 492 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56111

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 747 (People v. Donegan) 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. Donegan, 112 A.D.2d 747, 492 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of selling quantities of cocaine and marihuana to an undercover police officer. Defendant’s theory at trial was that he acted as the buyer’s agent in each transaction. He argues on appeal that the trial court’s instructions to the jury on the defense of agency foreclosed consideration of the existence of an agency relationship upon a finding that defendant received a benefit from the sales. We disagree. Assuming that an agency charge was appropriate in the circumstances of this case, the trial court properly charged the jury that the question of defendant’s personal gain is an appropriate factor for their consideration (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930; People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, cert denied 439 US 935; People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, cert denied 439 US 958).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Sullivan, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree, and other offenses.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of selling quantities of cocaine and marihuana to an undercover police officer. Defendant’s theory at trial was that he acted as the buyer’s agent in each transaction. He argues on appeal that the trial court’s instructions to the jury on the defense of agency foreclosed consideration of the existence of an agency relationship upon a finding that defendant received a benefit from the sales. We disagree. Assuming that an agency charge was appropriate in the circumstances of this case, the trial court properly charged the jury that the question of defendant’s personal gain is an appropriate factor for their consideration (see, People v Argibay, 45 NY2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v New York, 439 US 930; People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, cert denied 439 US 935; People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78, cert denied 439 US 958).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Sullivan, J. — criminal sale of controlled substance, third degree, and other offenses.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 747, 492 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donegan-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack