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
ALL EIGHT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS EXAMINED VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRMENT TO PROVIDE A SOUND EDUCATION TO THE AT-RISK STUDENT POPULATIONS (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER LIVED IN NEW JERSEY AND COMMUTED TO NEW YORK CITY FOR WORK; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS OWNED A VACATION HOME IN NORTHFIELD, NEW YORK, AND SPENT THREE WEEKS A YEAR THERE, THE NORTHFIELD HOME DID NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A PERMANENT PLACE OF ABODE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX LAW; THEREFORE THE TAX TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE CONCLUDED PETITIONERS OWED NEW YORK STATE INCOME TAX (THIRD DEPT). ​
Residential Health Care Facility’s Medicaid Reimbursement Disallowed with Respect to Certain Operating Costs
REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEAN UP AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK ON 9-11 AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS UNDER ARTICLE 8-A (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO DECLARE THE PARENTAGE OF A CHILD BORN TO A MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLE BECAUSE THE CHILD WAS NOT BORN “OUT-OF-WEDLOCK;” RECENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION WILL SOON ALLOW SUCH A PETITION IN FAMILY COURT AND THE PARTIES MAY NOW SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE IN SUPREME COURT, WHICH HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (THIRD DEPT).
THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE STRUCTURE-LOSS (FIRE-DAMAGE) CLAIM; THE PARTIES WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THAT POSSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).

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...