People v. Jamison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jamison

29 A.D.2d 973, 289 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250

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

DecidedApril 15, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 973 (People v. Jamison) 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. Jamison, 29 A.D.2d 973, 289 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered May 20, 1966, affirmed. It was not error for the trial court to have omitted instructions on the law of agency in narcotics sales. There is no indication whatsoever that defendant was anything other than the principal seller in these transactions (cf. People v. Lindsey, 16 A D 2d 805, affd. 12 N Y 2d 958). Nor was evidence of any overt act other than the sale itself necessary to support the fourth count of the indictment — possession with intent to sell. Similarly, no error was committed by the admission into evidence of People’s Exhibits 2 and 3 (the alleged narcotics bought from defendant), as to which no objection was made, since the chain of identification of the specimen and its unchanged condition from the time it was purchased from defendant until it reached the chemist with seal intact were sufficiently established despite the absence of testimony by postal employees who handled it in the interim (People v. GoedTcoop, 26 Mise 2d 785). The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury with respect to the misdemeanor of possession of narcotics did not constitute reversible error in the absence of a request to so charge (see Code Grim. Pro., § 420-a), especially since there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered May 20, 1966, affirmed. It was not error for the trial court to have omitted instructions on the law of agency in narcotics sales. There is no indication whatsoever that defendant was anything other than the principal seller in these transactions (cf. People v. Lindsey, 16 A D 2d 805, affd. 12 N Y 2d 958). Nor was evidence of any overt act other than the sale itself necessary to support the fourth count of the indictment — possession with intent to sell. Similarly, no error was committed by the admission into evidence of People’s Exhibits 2 and 3 (the alleged narcotics bought from defendant), as to which no objection was made, since the chain of identification of the specimen and its unchanged condition from the time it was purchased from defendant until it reached the chemist with seal intact were sufficiently established despite the absence of testimony by postal employees who handled it in the interim (People v. GoedTcoop, 26 Mise 2d 785). The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury with respect to the misdemeanor of possession of narcotics did not constitute reversible error in the absence of a request to so charge (see Code Grim. Pro., § 420-a), especially since there was ample evidence to sustain the conviction. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 973, 289 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jamison-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack