You are here: / / Court’s Refusal to Give the Circumstantial Evidence Jury Instruction R...
,

Court’s Refusal to Give the Circumstantial Evidence Jury Instruction Required Reversal—No Direct Evidence Defendant Was Aware of Cocaine Hidden in Vehicle

The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction determining the trial court erred when it refused to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence.  The case was based upon the constructive possession of a brick of cocaine found in a hidden compartment in a vehicle.  Defendant was not the owner of the vehicle, was not driving the vehicle, and was not the target of police surveillance:

It is well established that a “defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence instruction must be allowed when proof of guilt rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence” … .  Constructive possession can be proven directly or circumstantially, and the necessity of a circumstantial evidence charge should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.  In this case, the proof connecting defendant to the drugs was wholly circumstantial.  Defendant was not the owner or driver of the vehicle, nor was he the target of the surveillance operation, and there was no direct evidence that he was aware of the hidden compartment or that he exercised dominion and control over the concealed cocaine… . People v Santiago, 204, CtApp 11-26-13

 

You might also like
NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
THE NYC LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REMITTED THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION CONCERNING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE TENANTS PURPORTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION FOR LOFT LAW COVERAGE (CT APP).
WHETHER ADIRONDACK WATERWAY IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT, AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE, COULD NOT BE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW.
WHERE, AS HERE, THE SORA COURT EXPRESSLY FINDS THERE WAS NO SEXUAL CONDUCT OR MOTIVE UNDERLYING THE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD, THE REQUIREMENT THAT DEFENDANT BE DESIGNATED A SEX OFFENDER VIOLATES DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).
PETITIONER, A CORPORATION OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, THEREFORE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO RPTL 704 (CT APP).
A SENTENCING COURT MAY REQUIRE A DEFENDANT, AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION, TO PAY FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING, IF A DEFENDANT CLAIMS AN INABILITY TO PAY, A HEARING MUST BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION IS APPROPRIATE AND, IF NOT, THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SENTENCED TO PRISON (CT APP).
NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY PROMULGATING HEALTH CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOUNG CHILDREN IN CITY REGULATED PROGRAMS TO RECEIVE FLU VACCINATIONS, NOR ARE THE CODE PROVISIONS PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW (CT APP).
A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CPLR 5015 Power to Vacate a Final Judgment after Reversal of a Companion Case... A Factually Inconsistent Verdict Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to...