People v. Horn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Horn

106 A.D.2d 404, 482 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21436

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.2d 404 (People v. Horn) 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. Horn, 106 A.D.2d 404, 482 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eiber, J.), rendered February 17, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.

Although the testimony adduced at trial was inconsistent, there was a reasonable view of the evidence which would have supported a finding by the jury that defendant’s role was that of an agent. Accordingly, the court should have granted defendant’s request to charge the agency defense.

We have considered defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eiber, J.), rendered February 17, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.

Although the testimony adduced at trial was inconsistent, there was a reasonable view of the evidence which would have supported a finding by the jury that defendant’s role was that of an agent. Accordingly, the court should have granted defendant’s request to charge the agency defense.

We have considered defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 404, 482 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-horn-nyappdiv-1984.