The appellant was convicted by a jury on the charges of possession of marijuana possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The appellant is appealing the convictions on two grounds. First, he states that the evidence in the case is insufficient for the conviction. Second, he argues that the district court made an error by allowing certain past marijuana dealings involving his brothers be introduced as evidence.
The appellant rant a service station. According to a co-conspirator the appellant told him to load almost 2000 pounds of marijuana. The marijuana was owned by the appellant’s brother. The contraband was in burlap sacks and was stored along with the truck that it was to be loaded onto in a shed about 20 miles from the station.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the co-conspirator and two others went to the shed and loaded the sacks of marijuana onto the truck the sacks were then covered with grain and the trailer was then covered with a tarp. The men returned to the service station. The three men were paid $200 for the work, but would not receive it until the truck made it to its destination.
Later that night the defendant and co-conspirators went to the trailer and hooked it up to a truck. A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said one man drove the truck and three others followed in a car behind. They were to call the appellant when they reached their destination. The truck was stopped at the border and the border patrol agents found the marijuana.
The appellant and three co-defendants were all indicted for conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute it and for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute it. The appellant has been convicted on both of these counts.
The court must look at the evidence of the case to determine whether it is sufficient to support the convictions of the defendant. The defendant argues that the evidence does not support the charge of possession. He notes that the only evidence was one co-defendant’s testimony.
There is no evidence to show that the appellant had actual physical possession of the marijuana. However, when it comes to constructive possession, there is enough evidence to show that the defendant had control over the marijuana throughout the entire transaction.
Case Discussion and Decision
The defendant has also argued the fact that certain evidence was allowed into the case. When reviewing the facts it is found that the evidence supported the case against the defendant and was within the realm of allowable evidence.
For these reasons, the court is affirming both convictions of the defendant. The appeals are denied.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations to anyone that is in need of legal advice and lives in the New York City area. You may contact us at any time to speak with an experienced New York lawyer regarding your legal issue, whether you have been charged with drug possession, theft or sex crimes. Our offices are conveniently located throughout the city.