People v. Gray, 232 A.D.2d 179 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). · Go Syfert
People v. Gray, 232 A.D.2d 179 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 179 �Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered May 31, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a…1 citing caseopening of page *179 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Alvarez, 51 A.D.3d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008).published
    In any event, even if the failure to charge down constituted error, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (People v Gray, 232 AD2d 179, 179-180 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1093 [1997]; see also Pe…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Clifton Gray
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 3, 1996.
Published opinion
232 A.D.2d 179
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9825
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered May 31, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Any error in not charging the agency defense with respect to 8 to 10 crack vials that defendant testified he had purchased on behalf of two friends was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence that defendant possessed a total of 98 crack vials[*180] with intent to sell them. First, the jury could have convicted defendant of possession with intent to sell based on the police officer’s testimony that he saw defendant complete two drug transactions minutes before the arrest (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 245). Second, even assuming the jury accepted defendant’s testimony that he was an agent as to a limited amount of the vials, he was still left in possession of a substantial number of vials with respect to which the jury could have readily inferred an intent to sell (cf., supra, at 245-246; People v Thomas, 162 AD2d 822, 823; People v Timmons, 127 AD2d 806, lv denied 69 NY2d 1010). Given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt of possession with intent to sell, the trial court properly refused to charge the lesser included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (cf., People v Rosa, 201 AD2d 308). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.