LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PEOPLE v MANINI Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEOPLE, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>079_0561, Possession, Evidence, Manini, Constructive Possession, Fuente, Criminal Possession, Controlled Substance, York, Accessorial Liability, Legally Sufficient, Grand Jury, Support, Indictment, Drugs, Penal Law, Cocaine, Principles, Appellate Division, Appellant, Respondent, Narcotics, Ny2d, Ssm, Alexander, Legally Insufficient, United States, Commission, Steven Chananie, Prima Facie , ContentID: 120248985

Case Documents
1 1992-03-31 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120895
10 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 10 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EVIDENCE
MANINI
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION
FUENTE
CRIMINAL POSSESSION
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
YORK
ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
GRAND JURY
SUPPORT
INDICTMENT
DRUGS
PENAL LAW
COCAINE
PRINCIPLES
DEFENDANT
APPELLATE DIVISION
APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
NARCOTICS
NY2D
SSM
ALEXANDER
LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT
UNITED STATES
COMMISSION
STEVEN CHANANIE
PRIMA FACIE


  THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. JAIME MANINI, RESPONDENT. / THE PEOPLE &C.,
  APPELLANT, v. CARLOS FUENTE, RESPONDENT.

    79 N.Y.2d 561, 594 N.E.2d 563, 584 N.Y.S.2d 282 (1992).
    March 31, 1992

   4 No. 48
   4 No. 47 SSM 13
   Decided March 31, 1992
     _________________________________________________________________

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

   No. 48:

   Steven Chananie, for Appellant.
   James Kousouros, for Respondent.

   SSM 13:

   Submitted by Steven Chananie, for Appellant.
   Submitted by John A. Cirando, for Respondent.

   ALEXANDER, J.:

   In these cases, we consider the extent to which the principles of
   accessorial liability and constructive possession may support a
   finding that evidence presented to a Grand Jury is legally sufficient
   to establish a prima facie case of criminal possession of a controlled
   substance. In both cases the trial court's dismissal of counts of the
   indictments charging criminal possession of a controlled substance
   were affirmed by the Appellate Division. The People were granted leave
   to appeal in each case by a Judge of this Court. The legal principles
   we apply are the same in both cases, but the significantly different
   factual scenarios require an affirmance in People v Manini and a
   reversal in People v Fuente.

   The indictments in both cases resulted from investigations of the New
   York State Organized Crime Task Force (OCTF) into the importation of
   drugs into New York. In Manini, the investigation began in December
   1987, and focused on drug trafficking in Onondaga and Cayuga counties.
   In the course of its investigation, the OCTF discovered that Manini,
   an un- indicted co-conspirator, Sanford Paige, and co-defendant
   Vincent DeTomaso, along with several other parties, were involved in
   the importation into and distribution of drugs within New York.
SNIPPETS:
  • THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. JAIME MANINI, RESPONDENT.
  • No. 47 SSM 13 Decided March 31,
  • Submitted by Steven Chananie, for Appellant.
  • we consider the extent to which the principles of accessorial liability and constructive
  • In both cases the trial court's dismissal of counts of the indictments charging criminal
  • The legal principles we apply are the same in both cases, but the significantly different
  • The indictments in both cases resulted from investigations of the New York State Organized
  • Operating out of California, Manini provided Paige and DeTomaso with cocaine on two separate
  • Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the
  • They argue that each defendant should be liable for criminal possession of a controlled
  • We begin our discussion by noting that under settled law "legally sufficient evidence" means
  • Under section 20.00 of the Penal Law, a defendant is accessorily liable for a criminal
  • The People's reliance on United States v Smith is equally misplaced.
  • Opinion by Judge Alexander.
  •    |