Opinion · New York Court of Appeals
People v. Diaz
15 N.Y.3d 764
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New York Court of Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 2010-07-01
- Topic
- litigation
OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the trial evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to infer both that defendant exercised dominion and control over the van from which police recovered over four ounces of crack cocaine, and that defendant had knowledge that the drugs were secreted in a hidden compartment beneath the van’s air bag cover (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). Defendant’s knowledge could be inferred from his sole possession of the van at the time the contraband was seized, his *766 possession of nine unused crack pipes in the van’s glove compartment, and his inconsistent and implausible accounts of his relationship to the van (People v Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 285 [1971] [“Knowledge (of the presence of illegal drugs) may be shown circumstantially by conduct or directly by admission, or indirectly by contradictory statements from which guilt may be inferred”]). Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Diaz. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the People (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the trial evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to infer both that defendant exercised dominion and control over the van from which police recovered over four ounces of crack cocaine, and that defendant had knowledge that the drugs were secreted in a hidden compartment beneath the van’s air bag cover (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). Defendant’s knowledge could be inferred from his sole possession of the van at the time the contraband was seized, his
*766 possession of nine unused crack pipes in the van’s glove compartment, and his inconsistent and implausible accounts of his relationship to the van (People v Reisman, 29 NY2d 278, 285 [1971] [“Knowledge (of the presence of illegal drugs) may be shown circumstantially by conduct or directly by admission, or indirectly by contradictory statements from which guilt may be inferred”]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.