SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
December 27, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered July 13, 2009.
People v Jennings (Roosevelt)
Decided on December 27, 2011
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
After a non-jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.03). On appeal, defendant argues that the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient, because it was not accompanied by a lab report identifying the controlled substance, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
It was alleged in the accusatory instrument and in the arresting officer's supporting deposition that the arresting officer had seen defendant drop a glass pipe containing crack cocaine residue on the ground. She further stated that she had identified the substance as crack cocaine residue based upon her professional training as a police officer in the identification of the substance and its "packaging," and her prior experience as a police officer in arrests for criminal possession of the substance. We find that the sworn allegations by the arresting officer were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of an information (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225 ; People v Collins, 23 Misc 3d 138[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50914[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; see also People v Mack, 29 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52073[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 ; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 ), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity at the trial to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888 ). The Criminal Court accepted the version of events proffered by the People's witnesses, and we see no basis in the record to disturb the verdict.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Weston, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 27, 2011
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.