TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Dillon

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel Dillon and Roy Hetzel, Appellants

People v. Dillon, 663 N.E.2d 319 (N.Y. 1995)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 27, 1995
Judges
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur
Citations
663 N.E.2d 31987 N.Y.2d 885639 N.Y.S.2d 10071995 N.Y. LEXIS 4753

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

During the course of a high-speed automobile chase having its inception in a traffic violation, the pursuing State Trooper observed the passenger in the fleeing vehicle, defendant Dillon, throw two small bags onto the roadway. The chase continued for another 10 to 15 miles until the driver, defendant Hetzel, was eventually stopped. Approximately 3.94 ounces of a white powder containing cocaine and eight hypodermic needles were recovered from the roadside at the point where the bags had been thrown.

There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which the Grand Jury could have inferred that defendants Dillon and Hetzel had knowledge that the cocaine weighed more than the statutory minimum of an aggregate two ounces, and therefore, County Court erred in reducing count one of the indictment from criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) to criminal possession of *887 a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03).

Given the lesser standards for measuring the sufficiency of Grand Jury instructions (see, People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 454 ;

People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394 ;

see also, CPL 190.30 [7]), we also conclude that the instructions in this case were adequate.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1996: 51997: 21998: 12025: 119962026peak 1996 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Washington233 A.D.2d 684 (1996)
  2. People v. Hardy226 A.D.2d 652 (1996)
  3. People v. Cesar226 A.D.2d 113 (1996)
  4. People v. Fenti234 A.D.2d 953 (1996)
  5. People v. Sira254 A.D.2d 311 (1998)
  6. People v. Waasdorp237 A.D.2d 918 (1997)

Most recent

  1. People v. Garcia2025 NY Slip Op 50982(U) (N.Y. Cty. Ct., Columbia Cty. 2025)
  2. People v. Sira254 A.D.2d 311 (1998)
  3. People v. Garnett237 A.D.2d 174 (1997)
  4. People v. Waasdorp237 A.D.2d 918 (1997)
  5. People v. Fenti234 A.D.2d 953 (1996)
  6. People v. Washington233 A.D.2d 684 (1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Calbud, Inc., 402 N.E.2d 1140 (N.Y. 1980) 351
People v. Darby, 553 N.E.2d 974 (N.Y. 1990) 180

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list