You are here: / / “Drug Factory” Presumption re: Possession of Drugs to Which...
,

“Drug Factory” Presumption re: Possession of Drugs to Which the Defendant Is In “Close Proximity” Does Not Apply to A Defendant Who Is Arrested Outside the Building Where the Drugs Are Located and Who Was Not Trying to Escape/Where a Jury Is Instructed It Can Consider Two Different Theories of Possession, and One of Those Theories Should Not Have Been Available for the Jury’s Consideration, the Relevant Convictions Must Be Reversed—the Jury Could Have Based Its Verdict on the Erroneously-Charged Theory

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trial judge should not have allowed the jury to consider whether the defendant, who was arrested outside the apartment, was in “close proxity” to the cocaine in the apartment.  Penal Law 220.25(2) creates a presumption that persons in “close proximity” to drugs that are being mixed or packaged possesses those drugs (the so-called “drug factory” presumption). The trial judge also instructed the jury they could consider whether the defendant constructively possessed the drugs by virtue of his control over the area where the drugs were found.  Because it can not be determined whether the jury based its verdict on the erroneous “drug factory” charge or the correct “constructive possession” charge, the relevant convictions were reversed and a new trial ordered.  The Court of Appeals went through all the scenarios which have been held to constitute “close proximity” to drugs and concluded that where a defendant is outside the structure where the drugs are located and is not in the process of fleeing, the “drug factory” presumption does not apply:

…[T]he presumption may apply even in cases where a defendant has exited the premises, when the defendant is caught in immediate flight, or apprehended fleeing the premises “upon the sudden appearance of the police” … . We need not determine on this appeal how far from the premises defendant may be apprehended and still be subject to the presumption. We note, however, that the boundary in these cases is not limitless. Suffice it to say, that each incremental enlargement of the distance between the defendant and the premises where the drugs are found tests the underlying justification of the presumption, and makes it susceptible to challenge. …

Applying these principles to the record before us, we conclude that defendant was not in close proximity to the drugs when they were found within the meaning of section 220.25(2). He was not in the room where the drugs were found, in an adjacent room within the same apartment, or in a “closet, bathroom or other convenient recess[].” Nor was he found immediately outside the premises while trying to escape.  People v Kims, 2014 NY Slip Op 07196, CtApp 10-23-14

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Understanding Guilty Plea Would Result In Only a Year and a Half More in Prison Required Vacation of Plea
Non-Resident Shareholders In an S Corporation Who Sold their Stock and Treated the Transaction as a “Deemed Asset Sale” Were Properly Assessed New York Income Tax on the New York-Source Aspects of the Sale
THE DNA EVIDENCE GENERATED BY THE TRUEALLELE CASEWORK SYSTEM WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE DEFENSE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TRUEALLELE SOFTWARE CODE EITHER IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRYE HEARING OR TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST DEFENDANT; THE CONCURRENCE STATED WHETHER THE CODE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER REMAINED AN OPEN QUESTION (CT APP).
Indictment Rendered Duplicitous By Trial Evidence Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—The Error Must Therefore Be Preserved by an Objection to Be Raised on Appeal
Concurrent Inclusory Counts Dismissed and Sentences Vacated—Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request that the Greater and Lesser Counts Be Submitted to the Jury in the Alternative, Although a Clear-Cut Error, Did Not Deprive the Defendant of Meaningful Representation
UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP).
Restitution to Police Department Re: Expenses of Drug Bust Proper
No Element of Intent in Constructive Possession of Contraband

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

Failure to Inform Defendant of Period of Post-Release Supervision Before Sentencing... Prior Consistent Statements by the Complainant in a Sexual Abuse Case Were Not...