LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

THE PEOPLE &C. v DASHON HINES Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0113, Trial Court, Cpl, Motion, Criminal Possession, Evidence, Appellate Division, Penal Law, Drug, Review, Controlled Substance, Apartment, Crawford, Dismiss, Legally Sufficient, Case-in-chief, Conviction, Witnesses, Supreme Court, Ny2d, Narcotics, Insufficient, Dashon Hines, Revisiting, Guilty Verdict, Set Aside, Indictment, Drug Paraphernalia, Housing Authority , ContentID: 120248669

Case Documents
1 2001-10-23 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120579
9 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 9 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
TRIAL COURT
CPL
MOTION
CRIMINAL POSSESSION
EVIDENCE
APPELLATE DIVISION
PENAL LAW
DRUG
REVIEW
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
APARTMENT
CRAWFORD
DISMISS
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
CASE-IN-CHIEF
CONVICTION
WITNESSES
SUPREME COURT
NY2D
NARCOTICS
INSUFFICIENT
DASHON HINES
REVISITING
GUILTY VERDICT
SET ASIDE
INDICTMENT
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
HOUSING AUTHORITY


   4 No. 137
   The People &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Dashon Hines,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 113

   October 23, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Shirley K. Duffy, for appellant.
   James P. Maxwell, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   GRAFFEO, J.:

   At issue is whether a trial court that denied a motion to dismiss at
   the close of the People's case-in-chief may review that decision in
   the context of a post-verdict CPL 330.30 motion after defendant called
   witnesses and testified on his own behalf. Because we conclude that
   Supreme Court erred in revisiting its prior denial, we affirm the
   order of the Appellate Division reinstating defendant's conviction.

   Defendant Dashon Hines and co-defendant Jamie Crawford were charged
   with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree
   (Penal Law § 220.21(1) (possession of four or more ounces of a
   narcotic drug)), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the
   third degree (Penal Law § 220.16(1) (possession with intent to
   sell)), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree
   (Penal Law § 220.50(3) (possession of scales and balances under
   circumstances evincing an intent to use them for manufacture or sale
   of a narcotic drug)). The charges arose from the discovery of more
   than fourteen ounces of cocaine,(1) drug paraphernalia and $7,900
   in an apartment defendant had leased from the Syracuse Housing
   Authority. The contraband was found after firefighters, who entered
   defendant's apartment in the course of extinguishing a fire in the
   apartment below, saw cocaine and drug paraphernalia in the open hall
   pantry. This led to a search of the premises by police officers
   pursuant to a warrant, who discovered more contraband in the bedroom
   along with personal property belonging to defendants.

SNIPPETS:
  • The People &c., Respondent, v. Dashon Hines, Appellant.
  • At issue is whether a trial court that denied a motion to dismiss at the close of the
  • Because we conclude that Supreme Court erred in revisiting its prior denial, we affirm the
  • Defendant Dashon Hines and co-defendant Jamie Crawford were charged with criminal possession
  • The charges arose from the discovery of more than fourteen ounces of cocaine,drug
  • The People offered evidence that defendant took possession of the apartment in January 1998
  • A police officer with extensive training and experience as an undercover narcotics
  • Defendant did not dispute that he was the sole tenant of record for the apartment but
  • At the conclusion of all of the proof, defendant's attorney requested that the charge of
  • it is evident from the court's written decision that the court was deciding defendant's post-
  • Under this statutory standard, an insufficiency argument may not be addressed unless it has
  • At the close of the People's case, defendant moved, pursuant to CPL 290.10, for a trial order
  •    |