People v. Hazzard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hazzard

32 A.D.2d 844, 302 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3556

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

DecidedJune 30, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 844 (People v. Hazzard) 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. Hazzard, 32 A.D.2d 844, 302 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 12, 1967, convicting defendant of various crimes, upon a jury verdict, affirmed. In our opinion, the proof as to the first count of the indictment (felonious sale of narcotics), albeit circumstantial, was clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction (People v. Taddio, 292 N. Y. 488). Furthermore, although the absence of any proof that appellant possessed one or more ounces of a narcotic drug rendered the statutory presumption of intent to sell by reason of possession of such a quantity unavailable (see former Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 2), there was other evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the intent charged in the second count of the indictment (cf. People v. Silverman, 23 A D 2d 947). Such intent was established by the testimony of one of the police officers who had witnessed an actual sale of narcotics by appellant immediately prior to his arrest and by the proof that nine separate packages, subsequently found to contain heroin, were found on appellant’s person at the time of his arrest. Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 12, 1967, convicting defendant of various crimes, upon a jury verdict, affirmed. In our opinion, the proof as to the first count of the indictment (felonious sale of narcotics), albeit circumstantial, was clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction (People v. Taddio, 292 N. Y. 488). Furthermore, although the absence of any proof that appellant possessed one or more ounces of a narcotic drug rendered the statutory presumption of intent to sell by reason of possession of such a quantity unavailable (see former Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 2), there was other evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the intent charged in the second count of the indictment (cf. People v. Silverman, 23 A D 2d 947). Such intent was established by the testimony of one of the police officers who had witnessed an actual sale of narcotics by appellant immediately prior to his arrest and by the proof that nine separate packages, subsequently found to contain heroin, were found on appellant’s person at the time of his arrest. Christ, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 844, 302 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hazzard-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack