PEOPLE v. TORRANCE (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [2], [3]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We reject those contentions. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must “determine whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the [factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People” (People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367 [1994]). To meet their burden of proving defendant's constructive possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia, the People were required to establish that defendant “exercised ‘dominion or control’ over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband [was] found” (People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 573, 584 N.Y.S.2d 282, 594 N.E.2d 563 [1992]; see Penal Law § 10.00 [8]; People v. Ponder, 191 A.D.3d 1409, 1410, 141 N.Y.S.3d 618 [4th Dept. 2021]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 [1983]), we conclude that “the circumstances here provided the jury with ‘a sufficient basis ․ to conclude that ․ defendant [was] guilty of constructive possession’ ” of the drugs and drug paraphernalia (People v. Farmer, 136 A.D.3d 1410, 1412, 25 N.Y.S.3d 505 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1027, 45 N.Y.S.3d 379, 68 N.E.3d 108 [2016], quoting People v. Torres, 68 N.Y.2d 677, 679, 505 N.Y.S.2d 595, 496 N.E.2d 684 [1986]). Here, a tote bag found in the kitchen contained drug paraphernalia and paperwork with defendant's name on it, the drugs found on the shelf in the dining room were packaged in the same distinctive baggies that were located in the tote bag, defendant admitted to police that he lived at the residence, and an officer testified that the house had the characteristics of a drug house (see People v. Tucker, 173 A.D.3d 1817, 1818, 103 N.Y.S.3d 230 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 938, 109 N.Y.S.3d 732, 133 N.E.3d 436 [2019]; People v. Holland, 126 A.D.3d 1514, 1515, 6 N.Y.S.3d 873 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1165, 15 N.Y.S.3d 297, 36 N.E.3d 100 [2015]).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987]).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that verdict is repugnant inasmuch as he failed to object to the alleged repugnancy before the jury was discharged (see People v. Mateo, 194 A.D.3d 1342, 1345, 148 N.Y.S.3d 553 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 994, 152 N.Y.S.3d 421, 174 N.E.3d 361 [2021]).