| People v Jimenez |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 01566 [148 AD3d 723] |
| March 1, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Appellant, v Yomalbi Jimenez, Respondent. |
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, NY (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), forappellant.
Michael D. Horn, Astoria, NY, for respondent.
Appeals by the People (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated December 15, 2015, as granted that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidencepresented to the grand jury was legally insufficient, and (2) from an order of the same court datedFebruary 8, 2016, which denied their motion to resubmit the same charges under the indictmentto a different grand jury based upon new evidence.
Ordered that the order dated December 15, 2015, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on thelaw, and that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment onthe ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient is denied, theindictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, forfurther proceedings on the indictment; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 8, 2016, is dismissed, as no statuteauthorizes an appeal by the People from the order (see CPL 450.20; People v Tony C., 110 AD3d1093, 1094 [2013]) and, in any event, the appeal has been rendered academic in light of ourdetermination on the appeal from the order dated December 15, 2015.
The indictment charged the defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). In an order dated December15, 2015, the Supreme Court determined that the facts presented to the grand jury established thatthe defendant received a package addressed to "Jose Negron," and signed for that package usingthe name "Jose Negron." Immediately after receiving the package, but before opening it, thedefendant was arrested. The package was opened by the police, who found cocaine secretedinside two trophies. The Supreme Court concluded that the People failed to present any evidencefrom which the grand jury could find knowing possession, and the court granted that branch ofthe defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that theevidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient.
[*2] "Courts assessing the sufficiency of the evidence before agrand jury must evaluate whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, ifunexplained and uncontradicted—and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality ofthe evidence—would warrant conviction" (People v Woodson, 105 AD3d 782, 782 [2013] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see People v Mills,1 NY3d 269, 274-275 [2003]; People v Flowers, 138 AD3d 1138, 1139 [2016])." 'Legally sufficient evidence' means competent evidence which, if accepted as true,would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof"(People v Flowers, 138 AD3d at 1139, quoting CPL 70.10 [1]). " 'In the contextof a Grand Jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, notproof beyond a reasonable doubt' " (People v Jessup, 90 AD3d 782, 783 [2011], quoting People vBello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998]; see People v Wisey, 133 AD3d 799, 800 [2015]; People vWoodson, 105 AD3d at 783). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts,if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element ofthe charged crimes, and whether the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference.That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from those facts is irrelevant to thesufficiency inquiry as long as the Grand Jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference"(People v Bello, 92 NY2d at 526 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People vDeegan, 69 NY2d 976, 979 [1987]; People v Woodson, 105 AD3d at 783).
The crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law§ 220.18 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree(Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) require knowledge of possession, as well as knowledge ofthe nature of the possessed substance (see People v Ryan, 82 NY2d 497, 502 [1993]). "Aperson acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statutedefining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstanceexists" (Penal Law § 15.05 [2]). "Generally, possession suffices to permit theinference that the possessor knows what he possesses, especially, but not exclusively, if it is inhis hands, on his person, in his vehicle, or on his premises" (People v Reisman, 29 NY2d278, 285 [1971]).
Here, the defendant's knowledge that he was in possession of a package containing cocainemay be inferred from the unexplained and uncontradicted evidence demonstrating that thedefendant took the package in his hands under an assumed name at an address where he did notreside (see id. at 285-286; seealso People v Gonzalez, 8 AD3d 210, 210 [2004]; People v Walzer, 227 AD2d945, 945-946 [1996]; People v Blythe, 203 AD2d 472, 472 [1994]).
The Supreme Court's reliance upon People v Walzer (227 AD2d 945 [1996]) andPeople v Patello (41 AD2d 954 [1973]) is misplaced. In both of those cases, thedefendant testified at trial so as to rebut the inference of knowledgeable possession (seePeople v Walzer, 227 AD2d at 946; People v Patello, 41 AD2d at 954). In contrast,here, the evidence presented to the grand jury, unexplained and uncontradicted, was sufficient tomake the inference of knowledgeable possession.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant's ominibusmotion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to thegrand jury was legally insufficient. Dillon, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ.,concur.