People v. Burnett, 245 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Burnett, 245 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2011–2020 · …an expert who tests a substance for the presence of cocaine may not rely solely upon a test involving a comparison of the substance at issue to a known standard when the accuracy of the known standard is not established ✓
13 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Dell (nyappdiv, 2004-10-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a missing witness charge with respect to one of the victims of the crime is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thompson, 286 AD2d 453 [2001]; People v Buster, 245 AD2d 460, 461 [1997]; People v Russell, 209 AD2d 650, 651 [1994]).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Minter
2d Cir. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See 11 People v. Burnett, 666 N.Y.S.2d 658, 659 (2d Dep’t 1997) (“[A] controlled substance 12 under Schedule II of Public Health Law § 3306 includes cocaine and all of its 13 isomers.” (emphasis added)).
cited Cited "see" Spencer v. United States
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Burnett, 245 A.D.2d 460 (N.Y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
James Burnett
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 15, 1997.
245 A.D.2d 460
1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14140
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered April 28, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his conviction was based on legally insufficient evidence because the People’s forensic chemist did not distinguish between the natural L-cocaine and its synthetic isomer D-cocaine. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, a controlled substance under Schedule II of Public Health Law § 3306 includes cocaine and all of its isomers (Public Health Law § 3306 [b] [4]). Hence, upon the forensic chemist’s conclusion that cocaine was present in the substance tested, there was no need for additional testing to ascertain whether the substance was L-cocaine or D-cocaine.

Furthermore, the chemist’s opinion testimony that the vials contained cocaine was properly admitted into evidence given the basis of that opinion, to wit, four chemical analyses, three of which did not employ a known standard. It is well settled that an expert who tests a substance for the presence of cocaine may not rely solely upon a test involving a comparison of the substance at issue to a known standard when the accuracy of the known standard is not established (see, People v De La Rosa, 162 AD2d 698; People v Flores, 138 AD2d 512). However, when the expert’s opinion testimony that the substance contained cocaine is not based solely upon comparative tests using known standards but also on a series of other tests not involving known standards, a comparison test may then be relied upon by the expert (see, People v De La Rosa, supra; People v Flores, supra). Therefore, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.