1 No. 14
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Tarkisha Brown,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 26
March 19, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Andrew E. Abraham, for appellant.
Rafael Curbelo, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
GRAFFEO, J.:
In this appeal we are asked to determine whether the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing the introduction of expert testimony
by a police officer in a criminal trial regarding the general
operating methods and terminology used in street-level narcotics
transactions. Under the facts and circumstances presented, we hold
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
An undercover narcotics police officer working in Bronx County
approached a group of approximately five or six men congregating in
front of a grocery store and, in an attempt to locate a crack cocaine
seller, asked them who was "working the rock." Commenting on the
officer's disheveled appearance, the group derided the officer as a
"crack head" and told him to "get out of here." Another man then
exited the grocery store and called over the officer. The officer
remarked that he was "really hurting" for drugs, and in reply, the man
indicated that he "understood" and asked the officer what he was
looking for. When the officer responded that he was "looking for a
little rock," the man turned and pointed down the street at defendant,
stating "see the girl in the orange shirt? She's working. She (sic)
her?"
The officer walked toward defendant and asked if she was selling
crack. Defendant began quizzing the officer about whether he had ever
before bought drugs in the area. After the officer answered her
questions, defendant acknowledged "okay, I got nicks, come on."(1)
SNIPPETS:
The People &c., Respondent, v. Tarkisha Brown, Appellant.
In this appeal we are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in
Another man then exited the grocery store and called over the officer.
The officer remarked that he was "really hurting" for drugs, and in reply, the man indicated
The officer walked toward defendant and asked if she was selling crack.
After completing the transaction, the officer radioed his back-up team that he made a
About five minutes after the drug purchase, the undercover officer made a drive-by
In his opening remarks to the jury, defense counsel suggested that because no drugs or marked
In response to this misidentification defense, and after presenting the testimony of the
Under direct examination by the prosecutor, the sergeant stated that he was not present when
he referred to the different roles and functions performed by persons commonly involved in
The role of the trial court is to "determine when jurors are able to draw conclusions from
As to the latter, the court nevertheless properly precluded the sergeant from opining that
It is well settled that, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the
Defense counsel, however, did not make that showing, arguing instead that challenged jurors
Prior to the officer obtaining the crack cocaine, he had been ridiculed when he approached
It is also clear that the defendant made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination
Few problems have been as great a threat to the fairness of the American jury system as the
This Court remanded the case to Supreme Court for the People to provide race neutral reasons
|
