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. Juan DOLEO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered April 8, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, 3 to 6 years, and three terms of 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant's testimony. There was overwhelming evidence of constructive possession (see, People v. Bundy, 90 N.Y.2d 918, 663 N.Y.S.2d 837, 686 N.E.2d 496), consisting of defendant's acknowledged residence in the subject apartment for over a week prior to the arrest, his possession of the keys, the presence of his belongings including a beeper, and the presence of drugs and paraphernalia throughout the apartment, including a substantial amount of packaging materials and equipment in open view. There was ample evidence supporting the then-applicable requirement of defendant's knowledge of the weight of drugs possessed, where three times the statutory threshold amount was present, along with several scales for weighing drugs (see, People v. Sanchez, 86 N.Y.2d 27, 33-34, 629 N.Y.S.2d 179, 652 N.E.2d 925).
The court properly admitted expert testimony concerning the manner in which the various paraphernalia found in the apartment were suitable for use in packaging drugs, as well as the expert's opinion that the apartment in question was being used for the packaging and distribution of drugs, because this evidence was relevant to the issues presented at trial and beyond the knowledge of the average juror, while not constituting an opinion on an ultimate issue of fact (see, People v. Polanco, 169 A.D.2d 551, 564 N.Y.S.2d 404, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 965, 570 N.Y.S.2d 499, 573 N.E.2d 587).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 13, 1999
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)