From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pearson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 10, 1990
75 N.Y.2d 1001 (N.Y. 1990)

Opinion

Argued March 27, 1990

Decided May 10, 1990

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Yorka Linakis, J.

Richard S. Missan and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.

John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Howard Meshnick of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified. Defendant's convictions on the first and third counts for criminal possession of a controlled substance and the sentence thereon should be vacated and those counts dismissed. The order should be otherwise affirmed.

The People's evidence was legally insufficient to establish defendant's constructive possession of the cocaine found in the back room of a grocery store where defendant was arrested. Immediately after announcing his presence, the arresting officer observed the defendant and three others exiting a back room of a grocery store and walking briskly towards the front exit. There was contraband in the back room in plain view. There was no evidence that defendant owned, rented or had control over or a possessory interest in the store or the back room (compare, People v Watson, 56 N.Y.2d 632; People v Robertson, 48 N.Y.2d 993; People v Phiefer, 43 N.Y.2d 719). Nor was there proof that defendant was involved in any drug selling or other operation being conducted there (compare, People v Tejeda, 73 N.Y.2d 958; People v Gina, 137 A.D.2d 555, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1027).

The proof that defendant was coming from the back room is insufficient. Presence in a public place does not itself prove dominion and control over contraband discovered there (see, People v Headley, 74 N.Y.2d 858, 859, affg 143 A.D.2d 937; People v Russell, 34 N.Y.2d 261, 264-265; People v Siplin, 29 N.Y.2d 841; Penal Law § 10.00; cf., People v Dawkins, 136 A.D.2d 726, 727 [defendant found standing in kitchen of apartment with vials of cocaine between her feet]). The case of People v Tejeda ( 73 N.Y.2d 958, supra) cited by the People is distinguishable. There the drugs were found in an apartment in which the defendant was present and the statutory presumption of possession applied (see, Penal Law § 220.25).

Defendant's remaining contentions pertaining to his conviction on the other counts of the indictment are without merit.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Pearson

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 10, 1990
75 N.Y.2d 1001 (N.Y. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Pearson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DWAYNE PEARSON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 10, 1990

Citations

75 N.Y.2d 1001 (N.Y. 1990)
557 N.Y.S.2d 269
556 N.E.2d 1076

Citing Cases

People v. Yang, 2009 NY Slip Op 50793(U) (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 4/15/2009)

Constructive possession, requires a showing "that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the…

People v. Yang

Constructive possession, requires a showing "that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the…