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, Respondent, v. James HUNT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered March 27, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 51/212 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.
We reject defendant's various challenges to the People's use of expert testimony. The court properly deemed the arresting officer an expert in street level narcotics operations. The officer, a six-year veteran assigned to the Street Narcotics Enforcement Unit for almost two years prior to testifying, who had received special training and had been involved in over 500 narcotics arrests by the time of trial, was qualified to explain to the jury the routines and jargon peculiar to such transactions (see, People v. Rodgers, 209 A.D.2d 554, 619 N.Y.S.2d 84, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 913, 627 N.Y.S.2d 336, 650 N.E.2d 1338). The officer was properly permitted to testify as both a fact witness and an expert (People v. Lamboy, 228 A.D.2d 366, 367, 644 N.Y.S.2d 715, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 988, 649 N.Y.S.2d 395, 672 N.E.2d 621). Since defendant was accused of accessorial liability in a series of sales observed by the police, limited expert testimony on the various roles of the participants in street level narcotics sales was properly admitted to explain the absence of money and drugs in defendant's possession and his role in the sale (see, People v. Lacey, 245 A.D.2d 145, 666 N.Y.S.2d 157). The use of the term “manager”, in context, did not suggest a large scale operation (id.). Since defendant's role and not his identity was at issue, and since the testimony that defendant challenges as usurping the jury's function was limited to the issue of identification, such testimony could not have caused any prejudice.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: April 30, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)