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. Vanessa WHITEHURST, t/n Lavone Olin, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered June 12, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 1/212 to 15 years, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered September 25, 1998, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 4 1/212 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly refused to give a missing witness charge regarding a “ghost” undercover officer since defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the officer in question was in a position to observe the drug transaction (People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532, 577 N.Y.S.2d 231, 583 N.E.2d 944; People v. Vasquez, 272 A.D.2d 226, 709 N.Y.S.2d 395, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 872, 715 N.Y.S.2d 227, 738 N.E.2d 375). The purchasing undercover officer clearly testified that he did not see the ghost until the transaction was over, and that the ghost was a block away. Even if the ghost was in a position to see the undercover officer at some point during or immediately after the transaction, it does not follow that the ghost was in a position to see the exchange of drugs for money.
We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.
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: October 16, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 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)