Published on:

Court Rules on Drug Possession Case

This is a case being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Kenneth Murray. The defendant has been accused of acting in concert with another in commission of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said Murray has moved for the charges against him to be dismissed on the account that the indictment is defective and that it was not found on legally sufficient evidence.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argues that the indictment is deficient as it fails to conform to CPL section 200.30, subdivision 7. This section requires that a plain and concise factual statement of each count must be made. It further states that the defendant must be clearly apprised as to the matter of the accusation that is made against him.

The defendant also makes the argument that the evidence provided to the Grand Jury was not legally sufficient to sustain an indictment. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he states that any evidence that would have implicated him in the crimes that he is accused of would have been presented by a co-defendant or other witness and would need to be corroborated by legally sufficient evidence and there was not any in this case.

Case Discussion

The evidence that has been presented to the Grand Jury shows that police officers that work for the Long Island Drug Enforcement Task Force met with the co-defendant accomplice in a bar that is located in Huntington, Long Island. They purchased four ounces of cocaine from the co-defendant at the time. During the transaction the accomplice left the bar to go to his home to retrieve the drugs.

An officer was at the accomplice’s house conducting surveillance. He saw the accomplice enter his home and shortly after the defendant entered the house as well. Each individual came out of the home separately. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the accomplice returned to the bar and the defendant went to a deli in Huntington. This is the only evidence against the defendant aside from the testimony provided by the accomplice.

In similar cases such as this it was often found that the accomplice falsely accused another in order to gain a better deal for him or herself. In these cases it was found that corroborative evidence when presented to the Grand Jury is insufficient. In this case, the officer that saw the defendant at the home of the accomplice and the accomplice testifying against the defendant.

Court Decision

After reviewing the case and the evidence that was provided to the Grand Jury, the court finds in favor of the defendant. It is found that the evidence that has been submitted to the Grand Jury is insufficient to support the case against the defendant. The motion for the indictment to be dismissed is granted. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said leave is granted to the People to resubmit the case with additional evidence should any evidence exist.

The separate motion by the defendant for a bill of particulars is dismissed as academic.

If you need to speak with a lawyer, contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We have offices located throughout the metropolitan area of New York. You may call us at any time to set up an appointment to speak with an experienced lawyer regarding your case. We offer each of our first time visitors a free consultation.

Contact Information