People v. Watkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Watkins

284 A.D.2d 905, 726 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5830

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 905 (People v. Watkins) 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. Watkins, 284 A.D.2d 905, 726 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment [906]*906unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his .conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) must be reversed because the People failed to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was the seller of a controlled substance and not an agent of the buyer (see, People v Richards, 275 AD2d 886, 887, lv denied 96 NY2d 738; People v Trotty, 262 AD2d 337, 338, lv denied 93 NY2d 1028). Defendant actively initiated the sale, thereby exhibiting salesman-like behavior. Furthermore, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). It cannot be said that, in rejecting the agency defense, the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, People v Richards, supra, at 887). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment [906]*906unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his .conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) must be reversed because the People failed to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was the seller of a controlled substance and not an agent of the buyer (see, People v Richards, 275 AD2d 886, 887, lv denied 96 NY2d 738; People v Trotty, 262 AD2d 337, 338, lv denied 93 NY2d 1028). Defendant actively initiated the sale, thereby exhibiting salesman-like behavior. Furthermore, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). It cannot be said that, in rejecting the agency defense, the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, People v Richards, supra, at 887). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 905, 726 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watkins-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack