PEOPLE v. DOUGLAS (2005)

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18[1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 200.16[1] ).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).   In any event, that contention is without merit.   We conclude that there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury” (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672), i.e., that defendant exercised “a level of control over the drugs [seized from his accomplice] sufficient to support a finding of constructive possession” (People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 575, 584 N.Y.S.2d 282, 594 N.E.2d 563).   We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

 Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly refused to suppress the cocaine seized during the execution of a search warrant authorizing the search of defendant's person.   We conclude that the testimony of a police investigator and a police informant before the Magistrate was sufficient to establish probable cause to issue the search warrant (see People v. McQueen, 11 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 782 N.Y.S.2d 336, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 765, 792 N.Y.S.2d 9, 825 N.E.2d 141).   In addition, the court properly refused to suppress the cocaine seized from defendant's accomplice.   Defendant failed to establish a “legitimate expectation of privacy” with respect to the undergarments of his accomplice and therefore lacked standing to seek suppression of the cocaine that was seized from her (People v. Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351, 359, 540 N.Y.S.2d 757, 538 N.E.2d 76).

 We agree with defendant that the court erred in admitting the testimony of a police witness that a small amount of marihuana was recovered during a search of defendant (see generally People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359-360, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59).   We nevertheless conclude that the error in admitting that testimony is harmless (see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).   We further conclude that the testimony of defendant's accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by evidence tending to connect defendant to the commission of the crimes (see CPL 60.22[1];  People v. Besser, 96 N.Y.2d 136, 146, 726 N.Y.S.2d 48, 749 N.E.2d 727;  cf. People v. Johnson, 1 A.D.3d 891, 767 N.Y.S.2d 548).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.   We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: