PEOPLE v. ARTERBERRY (2016)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael T. ARTERBERRY, Defendant–Appellant.

Decided: June 10, 2016

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Jane I. Yoon of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree (Penal Law § 221.20). Viewing the evidence admitted at trial in light of the elements of the crime in this bench trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Here, the confidential informant testified that he had purchased marihuana from defendant at the subject apartment on more than one occasion, and the People presented evidence establishing that “defendant exercised dominion or control over the [marihuana] by a sufficient level of control over the area in which [it was] found” (People v.. Mattison, 41 AD3d 1224, 1225 [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 9 NY3d 924; see People v. Slade, 133 AD3d 1203, 1205, lv denied 26 NY3d 1150).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is 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Out of date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