People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mack

290 A.D.2d 517, 736 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 517 (People v. Mack) 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. Mack, 290 A.D.2d 517, 736 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered November 14, 1997, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 220.25 [2]; People v Riddick, 159 AD2d 596) and endangering the welfare of a child (cf., People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 371-372). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those charges was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The statutory presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) is inapplicable to the crime of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (see, People v Santos, 210 AD2d 129; People v Tejada, 81 NY2d 861). Although the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the drug paraphernalia, the conviction as to that charge was against the weight of the evidence (cf., People v Santos, supra). Accordingly, the conviction of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon must be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), rendered November 14, 1997, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 220.25 [2]; People v Riddick, 159 AD2d 596) and endangering the welfare of a child (cf., People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 371-372). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those charges was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The statutory presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) is inapplicable to the crime of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (see, People v Santos, 210 AD2d 129; People v Tejada, 81 NY2d 861). Although the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the drug paraphernalia, the conviction as to that charge was against the weight of the evidence (cf., People v Santos, supra). Accordingly, the conviction of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree and the sentence imposed thereon must be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 517, 736 N.Y.S.2d 382, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mack-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack