Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the state of New York, Respondent, v. Keith ROBINSON, Appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was arrested in May 1995 and after a jury trial was convicted of three drug-related crimes, including one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, based on defendant's possession of slightly more than one-eighth ounce of cocaine (see, Penal Law § 220.09 [1] ). During the trial, the People introduced certificates of defendant's three prior cocaine-related convictions, as evidence of his knowledge of the weight of the cocaine. Defendant contends that, before trial, he offered to concede his knowledge of the weight of the cocaine, which was an element of the crime at the time of arrest (but see, L. 1995, ch. 75), that this concession negated any need to inform the jury about his prior convictions, and that the trial court erroneously refused to accept it.
The Appellate Division, in affirming, relied on the holding of People v. Hills, 140 A.D.2d 71, 79, 532 N.Y.S.2d 269, that “[n]otwithstanding [a] stipulation, every element has to be charged and submitted to the jury.” We cannot and do not pass on the correctness of that conclusion in this case, however, because defendant's trial counsel, in fact, never effectively conceded the issue of defendant's knowledge of the weight of the cocaine or definitively offered to stipulate as to that element of the crime charged. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law in permitting the People to offer defendant's prior drug sale convictions as evidence.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur; Judge LEVINE taking no part.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: July 06, 1999
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)