You are here: / / THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PURCHASE DEALER QUANTITIES OF COCAINE...
,

THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PURCHASE DEALER QUANTITIES OF COCAINE FROM A DEALER (SANCHEZ) AND COOKED CRACK COCAINE FOR THAT DEALER WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO ORGANIZE OR LEAD THE DEALER’S DISTRIBUTION NETWORK; CONSPIRACY CONVICTON REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conspiracy to distribute cocaine conviction, determined the conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

… [D]efendant’s conviction of conspiracy in the second degree based upon the underlying crime of operating as a major trafficker is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The evidence presented by the People shows only that defendant intended to purchase dealer quantities of cocaine from Sanchez and cooked crack cocaine for Sanchez when requested, but wholly fails to connect defendant to Sanchez’s broader cocaine dealing network, as defendant was not linked to any of the stash houses or the other individuals with whom Sanchez was in contact. Although Penal Law § 220.77 (1) does not contain a defined mens rea term, it is not a strict liability crime (see Penal Law § 15.15 [2]), and its plain language requires proof that defendant engaged in conduct constituting the administration, organization or leadership of a controlled substance organization. The proof offered by the People does not set forth a valid line of reasoning to permissibly infer that this specific intent was met here. While defendant’s purchase of dealer quantities of cocaine from Sanchez and an agreement to cook crack cocaine for him might be sufficient to establish his knowledge of a broader cocaine distribution network … , they are not sufficient to infer that defendant intended Sanchez to administer, organize or lead a controlled substance organization, as the knowledge of such an organization is not equivalent to the intent to control one. People v Lundy, 2023 NY Slip Op 03727, Third Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: Conspiracy is a specific intent crime. Here the fact that defendant intended to purchase dealer quantities of cocaine from a dealer and cooked crack cocaine for the dealer was not legally sufficient evidence of the intent that the dealer administer, organize or lead a drug organization. The conspiracy conviction was vacated.

 

You might also like
STUDENT PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM A STATE UNIVERSITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT, PROCEDURES AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; E-FILING WAS VOLUNTARY IN CHENANGO COUNTY SO FAILURE TO E-FILE WAS NOT A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE DOG HAD NEVER BITTEN ANYONE BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
Violation of Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent Was Harmless Error—Elements of “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” Defense to Murder Explained
Court-Ordered Blood Test Results Should Have Been Suppressed Because the Application Failed to Indicate the Application Was Based Upon Hearsay/Elements of Reckless Driving Explained
Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AT SENTENCING RAISED THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE REQUIRING FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, ISSUE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Prisoner Must Object at Hearing to Obtain Judicial Review

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

A SELLER OF REAL PROPERTY CAN REMAIN SILENT ABOUT DEFECTS IN THE PROPERTY BUT... LAWYERS FOR CHILDREN, WHICH IS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE ATTORNEYS...