You are here: / / CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS ...
,

CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED.

The Third Department determined the evidence was not sufficient to support defendant's conviction of conspiracy in the second degree in this drug-sale case. In addition, the Third Department explained the proof required for criminal sale of a controlled substance where the evidence is primarily recorded phone calls and text messages:

“A person is guilty of conspiracy in the second degree when, with intent that conduct constituting a class A felony be performed, he [or she] agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct” (Penal Law § 105.15). Notably, “[a] person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless an overt act is alleged and proved to have been committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy” (Penal Law § 105.20 …).

At the joint trial, the People sought to convict [co-defendant] Wright of [criminal sale of a controlled substance second degree] based solely upon recorded telephone conversations between [Wright and defendant], in which Wright allegedly agreed to sell heroin to defendant. However, during those conversations, defendant equivocated as to how much heroin he sought to buy, and none of the heroin from the transaction was recovered by police. As a result, the People failed to independently establish that the weight of the heroin sold exceeded the statutory threshold … and, in turn, they failed to prove an alleged overt act by defendant or Wright in support of the conspiracy charge … . * * *

Where, as here, the People primarily rely on intercepted telephone conversations as evidence of a sale of drugs (see Penal Law §§ 220.00 [1]; 220.39 [1]), all that [is required] is the production of “some additional evidence establishing the existence of [the drug in question] to support [defendant's] convictions for [its sale]” … . People v Cochran, 2016 NY Slip Op 04255, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED)/CONSPIRACY (CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (CONSPIRACY TO SELL A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE NOT PROVEN; PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BASED PRIMARILY ON INTERCEPTED PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND TEXT MESSAGES EXPLAINED)

You might also like
COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL DIVERSION TO A DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM.
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON INVOICES SENT TO DEFENDANT FOR THE SOLAR PANELS (THIRD DEPT).
Slip and Fall On Sidewalk Near Place of Employment Was Not a Work-Related Accident
Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT POINT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE DEVIATION FROM A STANDARD OF APPROPRIATE CARE BY THE PSYCHIATRIC CARE-GIVERS, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COMMITTING SUICIDE SHORTLY AFTER RELEASE FROM DEFENDANTS’ CARE PROPERLY DISMISSED.
THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
In College Disciplinary Action, Victim Need Not Testify—Failure to Detail Factual Findings in Determination Violates Due Process

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

OPENING STATEMENT ALLEGING EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS FATALLY INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENCE... DISLOYAL OR FAITHLESS PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYMENT DUTIES (FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE)...