People v. Argro, 342 N.E.2d 601 (N.Y. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Argro, 342 N.E.2d 601 (N.Y. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Bolden (nyappdiv, 2010-02-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bolden
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances, “ ‘it was for the jury to decide whether the expert had adequately analyzed and weighed the contents and whether [her] opinion was entitled to be credited’ ” (People v Hill, 85 NY2d 256, 261 [1995], quoting People v Argro, 37 NY2d 929, 930 [1975]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Nelson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Under these circumstances, “it was for the jury to decide whether the expert had adequately analyzed and weighed the contents and whether [her] opinion was entitled to be credited” {id. at 261 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Argro, 37 NY2d 929, 930 [1975]; People v Bolden, 70 AD3d 1352, 1352-1353 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 838 [2010]; People v Caba, 23 AD3d 291, 292-293 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 810 [2006]).
examined Cited "see" United States v. Shonubi (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Argro, 37 N.Y.2d 929, 930 , 379 N.Y.S.2d 840, 841 , 342 N.E.2d 601, 602 (1975) (approving toxicologist’s procedure of choosing envelopes of heroin at random from a large batch to estimate total weight seized), approved, People v. Hill, 85 N.Y.2d 256 , 624 N.Y.S.2d 79 , 648 N.E.2d 455 (1995) (statistical sampling may be used to determine quantity of drugs).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Raymond Argro
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 19, 1975.
342 N.E.2d 601
1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2292
Lee S. Michaels for appellant., Patrick D. Monserrate, District Attorney (Patrick H Mar thews of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum. Defendant was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree (Penal Law, § 220.15, subd 2, par [b], cl [i]) for having in his possession 148 glassine envelopes packed in 10 batches which, according to the People’s expert, consisted of one third of an ounce of a substance containing heroin. On this appeal the defendant claims that because the toxicologist’s opinion was based on an analysis of 10 envelopes selected one from each of the 10 batches at random, the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed one eighth of an ounce or more of a substance containing heroin as is required to sustain a conviction for possession in the fourth degree.

At the trial the toxicologist testified that his opinion was based on the selection of 10 envelopes; that his analysis of their contents indicated that each of them contained heroin; that after weighing each he determined that the average weight was, 63 milligrams, and that after multiplying the average weight by the number of envelopes, he concluded that the defendant possessed one third of an ounce or more of a substance containing heroin. All of this was made quite clear to the jury, the expert’s opinion was received without objection, and all 148 envelopes were themselves admitted into evidence and physically before the jury.

Under these circumstances we believe that it was for the jury to decide whether the expert had adequately analyzed and weighed the contents and whether his opinion was entitled to be credited. Thus we conclude that there is no merit to the defendant’s argument that the People failed, as a matter of law, to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur; Judge Cooke taking no part.

[*931] Order affirmed in a memorandum.