PEOPLE, res, v. BENNIE JAMISON, def-ap

9325. PEOPLE, res, v. BENNIE JAMISON, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Caleb Kruckenberg of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), rendered June 3, 2009, as amended June 25, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9325. PEOPLE, res, v. BENNIE JAMISON, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Caleb Kruckenberg of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), rendered June 3, 2009, as amended June 25, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly permitted the undercover officers to give background testimony, based on their experiences, regarding the roles of participants in street level drug sales (see People v. Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 505-507 [2002]). Accessorial liability was the principal issue in the case. The challenged testimony was relevant to refute defendant’s claim that, rather than acting as a steerer and/or lookout, he was a mere bystander to the transaction (see People v. Henderson, 22 AD3d 311 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]; People v. Broadhurst, 306 AD2d 15, 16 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 641 [2003]). The jurors might not have been aware that defendant’s behavior before and during the sale was typical of a steerer/lookout. Furthermore, this testimony tended to explain why all the buy money was recovered from a codefendant who had exchanged the drugs for cash. The jurors might not have understood why a steerer/ lookout would not receive a share of the proceeds immediately after the sale.

PEOPLE, res, v. BENNIE JAMISON, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal