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, Appellant, v. John W. COLE, Defendant-Respondent.
The People appeal from an order that, upon that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the indictment for legal insufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury, reduced the first count of the indictment from promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25[2] ) to promoting prison contraband in the second degree (§ 205.20[2] ). Promoting prison contraband in the first degree involves “dangerous contraband” (§ 205.25 [2] ), and we agree with County Court that the evidence before the grand jury is legally insufficient to establish that the small quantity of marihuana possessed by defendant was dangerous contraband. That term is defined in Penal Law § 205.00(4) as “contraband which is capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein,” and “[s]pecific proof is needed regarding how the particular marihuana that was possessed by ․ defendant endangered the safety of the facility” (People v. Stanley, 19 A.D.3d 1152, 1153, 796 N.Y.S.2d 767, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 856, 806 N.Y.S.2d 176, 840 N.E.2d 145; see People v. Brown, 2 A.D.3d 1216, 1217, 769 N.Y.S.2d 657, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 637, 782 N.Y.S.2d 408, 816 N.E.2d 198). There is no such proof in this case (see Stanley, 19 A.D.3d at 1153, 796 N.Y.S.2d 767; Brown, 2 A.D.3d at 1217, 769 N.Y.S.2d 657; see also People v. Martinez, 34 A.D.3d 859, 823 N.Y.S.2d 574; cf. People v. Salters, 30 A.D.3d 903, 904-905, 817 N.Y.S.2d 743), and thus we conclude that the count was properly reduced (see Stanley, 19 A.D.3d at 1153, 796 N.Y.S.2d 767).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
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: September 28, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)