Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. WATKINS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.
Jun 8, 2001
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

Defendant contends that his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law ยง 220.39) must be reversed because the People failed to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. The evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant was the seller of a controlled substance and not an agent of the buyer ( see, People v. Richards, 275 A.D.2d 886, 887, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 738; People v. Trotty, 262 A.D.2d 337, 338 , lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1028). Defendant actively initiated the sale, thereby exhibiting salesmanlike behavior. Furthermore, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). It cannot be said that, in rejecting the agency defense, the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see, People v. Richards, supra, at 887).