People v. Davis
Opinion of the Court
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered September 12, 1990, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s conviction arises, inter alia, from the sale of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. The defendant initiated the subject purchase, although she only knew the undercover officer who was the buyer from one previous drug transaction. The defendant took the undercover officer to a premises where drugs were sold, took money from the undercover officer, and returned with the crack cocaine.
The defendant unpersuasively argues that the People have failed to disprove her agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt and, further, contends that the trial court’s agency charge was erroneous. Viewing the evidence in a light most
The trial court’s agency charge, when read as a whole, was not prejudicial to the defendant and was entirely proper (see, People v Lam Lek Chong, supra; People v Roche, supra; People v Pierce, 112 AD2d 527, 529). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.