People v. Echols

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Echols

75 A.D.2d 531, 426 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10925

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

DecidedApril 15, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 531 (People v. Echols) 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. Echols, 75 A.D.2d 531, 426 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered May 25, 1978, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to a term from one year to life, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remanded for a new trial. The Trial Judge erred in refusing to submit, as requested, the defense of agency to the jury. It is "the established New York rule that one who acts solely as the agent of a purchaser of narcotics cannot be convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance.” (People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78; 81.) Appellant testified that he had received no money and had merely, upon the undercover police officer’s request for assistance in obtaining drugs, pointed out to him a person called "James” as someone who had heroin for sale. Thereafter, the transaction took place between the undercover officer and "James”. In People v Roche (supra, p 86), the court stated "so long as there is some reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant acted as a mere instrumentality of the buyer, determination of the existence of an agency relationship should be submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions”. The People concede that the defendant was entitled to this charge. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered May 25, 1978, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to a term from one year to life, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remanded for a new trial. The Trial Judge erred in refusing to submit, as requested, the defense of agency to the jury. It is "the established New York rule that one who acts solely as the agent of a purchaser of narcotics cannot be convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance.” (People v Roche, 45 NY2d 78; 81.) Appellant testified that he had received no money and had merely, upon the undercover police officer’s request for assistance in obtaining drugs, pointed out to him a person called "James” as someone who had heroin for sale. Thereafter, the transaction took place between the undercover officer and "James”. In People v Roche (supra, p 86), the court stated "so long as there is some reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant acted as a mere instrumentality of the buyer, determination of the existence of an agency relationship should be submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions”. The People concede that the defendant was entitled to this charge. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 531, 426 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-echols-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack