People v. Polanco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Polanco

169 A.D.2d 551, 564 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 551 (People v. Polanco) 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. Polanco, 169 A.D.2d 551, 564 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered December 11, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 12 Vi years to life, 12 Vi to 25 years and two terms of 3 Vi to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

On May 22, 1986, the defendant was observed exchanging a tinfoil packet for cash. When he realized he had been seen by a uniformed police officer, he fled into the apartment building [552]*552in front of which he was standing. He was apprehended by the officer as he entered an apartment for which he possessed a key on his key ring.

Besides the key ring, $691 in cash and a tinfoil of cocaine were found on defendant’s person. The apartment was virtually empty except for cocaine, guns, and other paraphernalia used to weigh and prepare drugs for sale on the street.

On appeal, the defendant argues that an expert witness’s opinion usurped the function of the jury. We disagree. The record shows that the expert witness described the purpose of the articles found in the apartment, the value of the drugs found in the apartment, and testified that the condition of the apartment indicated that it was a typical "stash” where drugs were prepared for eventual sale in the streets. This testimony was admissible to establish that defendant possessed the cocaine with intent to sell. Further, the testimony was beyond the knowledge of the typical juror, and did not usurp the function of the jury. (People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40.) The money which was in the possession of the defendant at the time of his arrest was also admissible with respect to defendant’s intent to sell. (People v Milom, 75 AD2d 68.) Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered December 11, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 12 Vi years to life, 12 Vi to 25 years and two terms of 3 Vi to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

On May 22, 1986, the defendant was observed exchanging a tinfoil packet for cash. When he realized he had been seen by a uniformed police officer, he fled into the apartment building [552]*552in front of which he was standing. He was apprehended by the officer as he entered an apartment for which he possessed a key on his key ring.

Besides the key ring, $691 in cash and a tinfoil of cocaine were found on defendant’s person. The apartment was virtually empty except for cocaine, guns, and other paraphernalia used to weigh and prepare drugs for sale on the street.

On appeal, the defendant argues that an expert witness’s opinion usurped the function of the jury. We disagree. The record shows that the expert witness described the purpose of the articles found in the apartment, the value of the drugs found in the apartment, and testified that the condition of the apartment indicated that it was a typical "stash” where drugs were prepared for eventual sale in the streets. This testimony was admissible to establish that defendant possessed the cocaine with intent to sell. Further, the testimony was beyond the knowledge of the typical juror, and did not usurp the function of the jury. (People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40.) The money which was in the possession of the defendant at the time of his arrest was also admissible with respect to defendant’s intent to sell. (People v Milom, 75 AD2d 68.) Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 551, 564 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-polanco-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack