You are here: / / Possession of a Controlled Substance May Be Proved Circumstantially/Permissible...

Possession of a Controlled Substance May Be Proved Circumstantially/Permissible Inference that Possessors Know What They Possess

The Court of Appeals determined the accusatory instrument charging attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance was sufficient.  The police officer observed defendant drop a glass pipe which contained cocaine “residue.” The court noted that “possession of a controlled substance ‘may be proven circumstantially,’ and ‘possession suffices to permit the inference that possessors know what they possess.’ ”  People v Jennings, 256, CtApp 12-10-13

 

 

You might also like
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE PROCEEDINGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED.
THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH “FAILURE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUSTENANCE” FOR A DOG, AN A MISDEMEANOR, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NONHEARSAY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS; INSTRUMENT DISMISSED (CT APP).
COLLEGE’S DETERMINATION STUDENT VIOLATED THE CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EVIDENTIARY STANDARD DEFINED (CT APP).
Slip and Fall On Ice While Wearing Stilts Not an Elevation-Related Event within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
THE LICENSE ALLOWING THE USE OF A BOAT SLIP AT A COUNTRY CLUB WAS REVOCABLE AT WILL BY THE COUNTRY CLUB (THE LICENSOR) (CT APP). ​
AN ATTORNEY, A PRINCIPAL IN THE CORPORATIONS OWNING SEVERAL BUILDINGS, WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE IN THE “OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUSINESS” WITHOUT A LICENSE BECAUSE HE ADVERTISED HIS LAW PRACTICE IN SIGNS ON THE BUILDINGS (CT APP). ​
NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY’S RULES DO NOT ALLOW A SINGLE ADULT AND ADULT CHILD TO RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, ADULT CHILD ALLOWED TEMPORARY RESIDENCY TO CARE FOR HIS MOTHER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER STATUS UPON THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER (CT APP).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT INVESTMENT BANK’S EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY DEFRAUDED PLAINTIFFS OF $25 MILLION TO COVER THE EMPLOYEE’S LOSSES; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT SUE THE BANK BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BANK CUSTOMERS WAS REJECTED (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

Workers’ Compensation Board’s Finding Re: Extent of Disability Should Not... “Evidentiary Fact” Resolved In Favor of Defendant by a Jury In the First...