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, etc., Respondent, v. Peter McENIRY, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered March 19, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Wexner, J.) of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the drugs were illegally seized from his van and must therefore be suppressed is without merit. Upon the defendant's arrest, the police officer was authorized to enter the defendant's van, which had just collided with a police car and was extending into the street with its motor running (see, People v. Shapiro, 141 A.D.2d 577, 529 N.Y.S.2d 186). When the officer entered the van, the drugs and its container were in plain view. Since the officer was lawfully present in the van and inadvertently saw the drugs, they were properly admitted under the plain view doctrine (see, People v. Shapiro, supra).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge that he possessed more than one-half ounce of cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Lawrence, 85 N.Y.2d 1002, 630 N.Y.S.2d 963, 654 N.E.2d 1211), and in any event, is without merit. The evidence established that the defendant carried the cocaine in two vials and a plastic bag, that it weighed over twice the statutory limit, and that he had prior dealings in the drug trade. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: June 23, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)