TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. McCray

The People of the State of New York v. Joel McCray, Also Known as Jo Moe

People v. McCray, 57 A.D.2d 632 (1977)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 25, 1977
Citations
57 A.D.2d 632393 N.Y.S.2d 7561977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11652

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 3, 1974, convicting him of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree and criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the third and fourth degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant-appellant’s indictment and conviction for the crimes of criminally selling and possessing a dangerous drug arose out of a sale of heroin to a police officer on November 9, 1972. During the course of its charge, the trial court instructed the jury that possession of a drug carries with it a "presumption” that the possessor knows the nature of the possessed substance. That portion of the charge was erroneous. Possession of narcotics permits an inference, and not a presumption, that the possessor has knowledge of the nature of the substance. The inference can be rebutted. The burden of proving "knowledge” beyond a reasonable doubt always remains with the prosecution. The court also erred in instructing the jury that "Evidence which is evenly balanced is naturally not [beyond] a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is as consistent with innocence as it is with guilt the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the innocent consideration.” That statement, standing by itself, may have improperly conveyed to the jury the impression that defendant could be convicted if his guilt was demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. However, other parts of the charge correctly stated the applicable law. Notwithstanding these errors, it is our view that the judgment of conviction must be affirmed. We have reviewed the entire record and conclude that the errors were harmless. The proof of defendant’s guilt was so overwhelming as to preclude any significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for the errors which had occurred (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 ). We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1979: 11983: 11984: 21986: 21988: 11996: 119792026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Ortiz92 A.D.2d 595 (1983)
  2. People v. Wade99 A.D.2d 474 (1984) · Dissent
  3. People v. Man Lee Lo118 A.D.2d 225 (1986) · Dissent
  4. People v. Townes104 A.D.2d 1057 (1984)
  5. People v. James138 Misc. 2d 920 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1988)
  6. People v. Ramos223 A.D.2d 565 (1996)

Most recent

  1. People v. Ramos223 A.D.2d 565 (1996)
  2. People v. James138 Misc. 2d 920 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1988)
  3. People v. Man Lee Lo118 A.D.2d 225 (1986) · Dissent
  4. People v. Johnson118 A.D.2d 871 (1986)
  5. People v. Townes104 A.D.2d 1057 (1984)
  6. People v. Wade99 A.D.2d 474 (1984) · Dissent

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Crimmins, 326 N.E.2d 787 (N.Y. 1975) 5,242

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