Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2009Under an aggregate weight standard, “[t]he weight of the mixture containing the narcotic, rather than the weight of the actual narcotic content of the mixture, determines the degree of the crime” (People v Gonzalez, 57 AD3d 1477, 1478 [2008]), and “[n]onprohibited substances mixed with a proscribed substance can be included in determining the aggregate weight of the proscribed substance for the purpose of defining the degree of the crime.” (People v McCurdy, 25 AD3d 571, 571 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 759 [2006].) Defendant argues that the chemist’s method was insufficient because it only determ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen1 sentence2009The chemist did not need to estimate anything, or use the type of random sampling method that might have been required had there been a quantity of individual packets (cf. People v Hill, 85 NY2d 256, 261 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. McCurdygreen1 sentence2009Under an aggregate weight standard, “[t]he weight of the mixture containing the narcotic, rather than the weight of the actual narcotic content of the mixture, determines the degree of the crime” (People v Gonzalez, 57 AD3d 1477, 1478 [2008]), and “[n]onprohibited substances mixed with a proscribed substance can be included in determining the aggregate weight of the proscribed substance for the purpose of defining the degree of the crime.” (People v McCurdy, 25 AD3d 571, 571 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 759 [2006].) Defendant argues that the chemist’s method was insufficient because it only determ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Houston
green
2 sentences1988The argument, based upon the erroneous assumption that the People had the burden of proving pure weight (see, People v Houston, 72 AD2d 369 ), ignores the 1979 amendment to Penal Law article 221 (L 1979, ch 265) adopting an aggregate weight standard for the possessory offenses defined therein (see, Hechtman, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law art 221, at 96). 1982The sale of marihuana with which defendant was charged occurred on November 27, 1978 and thus the jury should have been instructed to apply the “pure weight” standard in effect at that time (see People v Ferguson, 81 AD2d 1020 ; People v Turdo, 74 AD2d 614 ; People v Houston, 72 AD2d 369 ). | 3 | 1981–1988 |
People v. Ryan
green
2 sentences1994The court also held that the defendant’s knowledge of the weight of the more than five ounces of cocaine measured by an aggregate weight standard may be inferred from his handling of the material (citing People v Ryan, supra). 1994The Court of Appeals in People v Ryan (supra) has made clear the difference in proofs permissible in pure weight and aggregate weight cases. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Daneff
neutral
2 sentences1985It is well established that the Legislature may choose to base the degree of criminal punishment upon an aggregate weight standard (People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , remittitur amended 31 NY2d 667 , cert denied 410 US 913 ; People v Morales, 63 AD2d 935 ). 1978(People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , supra; People v Cicale, 35 NY2d 661 ; People v Rosa, 54 AD2d 722 ; People v Riley, 50 AD2d 823 .) But the Legislature converted marihuana to a pure weight standard for ostensibly laudable purposes, and out of the fear that under an aggregate weight analysis people may find themselves charged with and convicted of large scale marihuana sales or possessory crimes when, in reality, the marihuana constituted only a minute percentage of the entity, say, a two-pound brownie. | 2 | 1978–1985 |
People v. Daneff
neutral
1 sentence1985It is well established that the Legislature may choose to base the degree of criminal punishment upon an aggregate weight standard (People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , remittitur amended 31 NY2d 667 , cert denied 410 US 913 ; People v Morales, 63 AD2d 935 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Morales
neutral
1 sentence1985It is well established that the Legislature may choose to base the degree of criminal punishment upon an aggregate weight standard (People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , remittitur amended 31 NY2d 667 , cert denied 410 US 913 ; People v Morales, 63 AD2d 935 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Daneff v. New York
neutral
1 sentence1985It is well established that the Legislature may choose to base the degree of criminal punishment upon an aggregate weight standard (People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , remittitur amended 31 NY2d 667 , cert denied 410 US 913 ; People v Morales, 63 AD2d 935 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People of State of New York v. Turdo
neutral
1 sentence1982The sale of marihuana with which defendant was charged occurred on November 27, 1978 and thus the jury should have been instructed to apply the “pure weight” standard in effect at that time (see People v Ferguson, 81 AD2d 1020 ; People v Turdo, 74 AD2d 614 ; People v Houston, 72 AD2d 369 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence1982The sale of marihuana with which defendant was charged occurred on November 27, 1978 and thus the jury should have been instructed to apply the “pure weight” standard in effect at that time (see People v Ferguson, 81 AD2d 1020 ; People v Turdo, 74 AD2d 614 ; People v Houston, 72 AD2d 369 ). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Cicale
neutral
2 sentences1978(People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , supra; People v Cicale, 35 NY2d 661 ; People v Rosa, 54 AD2d 722 ; People v Riley, 50 AD2d 823 .) But the Legislature converted marihuana to a pure weight standard for ostensibly laudable purposes, and out of the fear that under an aggregate weight analysis people may find themselves charged with and convicted of large scale marihuana sales or possessory crimes when, in reality, the marihuana constituted only a minute percentage of the entity, say, a two-pound brownie. 1978(People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , supra; People v Cicale, 35 NY2d 661 ; People v Rosa, 54 AD2d 722 ; People v Riley, 50 AD2d 823 .) But the Legislature converted marihuana to a pure weight standard for ostensibly laudable purposes, and out of the fear that under an aggregate weight analysis people may find themselves charged with and convicted of large scale marihuana sales or possessory crimes when, in reality, the marihuana constituted only a minute percentage of the entity, say, a two-pound brownie. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Riley
green
2 sentences1978(People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , supra; People v Cicale, 35 NY2d 661 ; People v Rosa, 54 AD2d 722 ; People v Riley, 50 AD2d 823 .) But the Legislature converted marihuana to a pure weight standard for ostensibly laudable purposes, and out of the fear that under an aggregate weight analysis people may find themselves charged with and convicted of large scale marihuana sales or possessory crimes when, in reality, the marihuana constituted only a minute percentage of the entity, say, a two-pound brownie. 1978(People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , supra; People v Cicale, 35 NY2d 661 ; People v Rosa, 54 AD2d 722 ; People v Riley, 50 AD2d 823 .) But the Legislature converted marihuana to a pure weight standard for ostensibly laudable purposes, and out of the fear that under an aggregate weight analysis people may find themselves charged with and convicted of large scale marihuana sales or possessory crimes when, in reality, the marihuana constituted only a minute percentage of the entity, say, a two-pound brownie. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Rosa
neutral
2 sentences1978(People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , supra; People v Cicale, 35 NY2d 661 ; People v Rosa, 54 AD2d 722 ; People v Riley, 50 AD2d 823 .) But the Legislature converted marihuana to a pure weight standard for ostensibly laudable purposes, and out of the fear that under an aggregate weight analysis people may find themselves charged with and convicted of large scale marihuana sales or possessory crimes when, in reality, the marihuana constituted only a minute percentage of the entity, say, a two-pound brownie. 1978(People v Daneff, 30 NY2d 793 , supra; People v Cicale, 35 NY2d 661 ; People v Rosa, 54 AD2d 722 ; People v Riley, 50 AD2d 823 .) But the Legislature converted marihuana to a pure weight standard for ostensibly laudable purposes, and out of the fear that under an aggregate weight analysis people may find themselves charged with and convicted of large scale marihuana sales or possessory crimes when, in reality, the marihuana constituted only a minute percentage of the entity, say, a two-pound brownie. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Carter
neutral
2 sentences1975If the court assumes that these are indeed the facts which underlie defendant’s motion, then unlike Mr. Justice Polsky in People v Carter ( 80 Misc 2d 1081 , supra), who could not conceive of any rational basis for applying the aggregate weight standard to the defendant, this court finds a very rational basis for doing so. 1975In support of his contention that said standard is unconstitutional in its application to methadone, he cites People v Carter ( 80 Misc 2d 1081 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.