PEOPLE v. WATKINS (2001)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jerome J. WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: June 08, 2001

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE and BURNS, JJ.

Leonard G. Tilney, Jr., for defendant-appellant. Thomas H. Brandt, for plaintiff-respondent.

Defendant contends that his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) must be reversed because the People failed to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was the seller of a controlled substance and not an agent of the buyer (see, People v. Richards, 275 A.D.2d 886, 887, 713 N.Y.S.2d 604, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 738, 722 N.Y.S.2d 805, 745 N.E.2d 1028; People v. Trotty, 262 A.D.2d 337, 338, 689 N.Y.S.2d 646, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1028, 697 N.Y.S.2d 587, 719 N.E.2d 948). Defendant actively initiated the sale, thereby exhibiting salesmanlike behavior. Furthermore, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). It cannot be said that, in rejecting the agency defense, the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see, People v. Richards, supra, at 887, 713 N.Y.S.2d 604).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network