People v. La Rowe

New York County Courts

People v. La Rowe

99 Misc. 2d 842, 417 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2345

DecidedJune 6, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 99 Misc. 2d 842 (People v. La Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. La Rowe, 99 Misc. 2d 842, 417 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2345 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Joseph Harris, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment upon the conten[843]*843tion that Albany County lacks geographical jurisdiction of this case. An examination of the Grand Jury minutes shows that defendant and one James Mullen had conversations by telephone for the purpose of arranging sales of cocaine. At the time of said conversations, defendant (seller) was located in Schenectady County. Mullen (buyer) was in Albany County. Testimony shows that agreements for the sale of a quantity of cocaine were reached on the telephone but that physical transfers of said cocaine took place in Schenectady.

CPL 20.40, states in pertinent part: "A person may be convicted in an appropriate criminal court of a particular county of an offense * * * committed either by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable pursuant to section 20.00 of the penal law, when: 1. Conduct occurred within such county sufficient to establish: (a) An element of such offense”.

Further, CPL 20.60 (subd 1) states: "An oral or written statement made by a person in one jurisdiction to a person in another jurisdiction by means of telecommunication * * * is deemed to be made in each such jurisdiction.”

Defendant is charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in violation of section 220.39 of the Penal Law, which reads as follows: "A person is guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree when he knowingly and unlawfully sells: 1. a narcotic drug”. "Selling” is an element of the offense.

" 'Sell’ means to sell, exchange, give or dispose of to another, or to offer or agree to do the same.” (Penal Law, § 220.00, subd 1; italics added.)

Here, conduct occurred within Albany County sufficient to establish an element of the crimes charged, to wit, agreements to sell a narcotic drug were reached on the telephone between the defendant seller in Schenectady and the buyer in Albany; said agreements are deemed by CPL 20.60 to have been made in both Albany and Schenectady Counties. Therefore, the requirements of CPL 20.40, needed to establish the geographical jurisdiction of Albany County, are satisfied. The motion to dismiss is denied.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Joseph Harris, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment upon the conten[843]*843tion that Albany County lacks geographical jurisdiction of this case. An examination of the Grand Jury minutes shows that defendant and one James Mullen had conversations by telephone for the purpose of arranging sales of cocaine. At the time of said conversations, defendant (seller) was located in Schenectady County. Mullen (buyer) was in Albany County. Testimony shows that agreements for the sale of a quantity of cocaine were reached on the telephone but that physical transfers of said cocaine took place in Schenectady.

CPL 20.40, states in pertinent part: "A person may be convicted in an appropriate criminal court of a particular county of an offense * * * committed either by his own conduct or by the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable pursuant to section 20.00 of the penal law, when: 1. Conduct occurred within such county sufficient to establish: (a) An element of such offense”.

Further, CPL 20.60 (subd 1) states: "An oral or written statement made by a person in one jurisdiction to a person in another jurisdiction by means of telecommunication * * * is deemed to be made in each such jurisdiction.”

Defendant is charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in violation of section 220.39 of the Penal Law, which reads as follows: "A person is guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree when he knowingly and unlawfully sells: 1. a narcotic drug”. "Selling” is an element of the offense.

" 'Sell’ means to sell, exchange, give or dispose of to another, or to offer or agree to do the same.” (Penal Law, § 220.00, subd 1; italics added.)

Here, conduct occurred within Albany County sufficient to establish an element of the crimes charged, to wit, agreements to sell a narcotic drug were reached on the telephone between the defendant seller in Schenectady and the buyer in Albany; said agreements are deemed by CPL 20.60 to have been made in both Albany and Schenectady Counties. Therefore, the requirements of CPL 20.40, needed to establish the geographical jurisdiction of Albany County, are satisfied. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 Misc. 2d 842, 417 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1979 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-la-rowe-nycountyct-1979.