609 N.E.2d 518 (N.Y. 1993)
Beginning in November 1986, officers from the Manhattan North Narcotics Division investigated defendant, his brother Miguel, and their associates through undercover operations, stakeouts, and court-authorized wiretaps on defendant's Bronx apartment telephone.1
In July 1987, an undercover officer purchased cocaine from Miguel at a Manhattan apartment, where Miguel introduced defendant as someone with whom he worked together.2 Wiretap evidence showed that in the days leading up to March 21, 1988, defendant negotiated with Luis Rojas to purchase kilogram quantities of cocaine, often using coded language such as references to tickets.3
On March 21, 1988, Rojas called defendant at 11:37 a.m. to confirm readiness, and defendant invited him over.4 Approximately thirty minutes later, stakeout officers observed a man arrive at defendant's six-floor apartment building, remove a black and white plastic bag with stretched handles from his car trunk, enter the building, and leave fifteen minutes later still carrying the heavy bag.5 Shortly after the man's departure, defendant telephoned an associate named Frank to report that he had seen the messenger but rejected the tickets because they were falsified and of poor quality.6 When Rojas called back, defendant explained that the friend had left because the merchandise did not fit his needs and complained about the misrepresentation of the quality.7
Defendant subsequently telephoned Hector Vargas to describe returning the bad product and, the next day, discussed pursuing better options with Vargas.8 At trial, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the attempted possession charge both before and after the jury verdict.9 The jury convicted defendant of conspiracy and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, after which the trial court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years to life on the attempted possession count.10 The Appellate Division reversed the attempted possession conviction on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient, though it did not conduct weight-of-the-evidence review.11 One of the dissenting justices at the Appellate Division granted the People leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.12
Whether the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant met with a drug courier in his home and examined cocaine on March 21, 1988?13
The rule for determining legal sufficiency of the evidence requires that the evidence be viewed in the light most favorable to the People.14 A court must determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.15
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that wiretap evidence captured defendant negotiating with Luis Rojas for kilogram quantities of cocaine in the days before March 21, 1988, using coded language.16 On that date Rojas called at 11:37 a.m. to confirm readiness and defendant invited him over.17 A man arrived at the six-floor apartment building with a heavy black and white plastic bag whose handles were stretched.18 He entered the building and departed fifteen minutes later still carrying the bag.19 Immediately afterward defendant telephoned an associate to report meeting the messenger but rejecting the tickets because they were falsified and of poor quality.20 Then he told Rojas that the friend had left because the merchandise did not fit and complained of the misrepresentation.21
Defendant later described returning the bad product to Hector Vargas and the next day discussed pursuing better options.22 These concrete, temporally linked facts supply a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences permitting a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant met the courier inside his home and examined the cocaine.23
The trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant met with a drug courier in his home and examined cocaine on March 21, 1988.24
Related opinions on this issue
Judge Smith dissented on the sufficiency issue. He contended that the stakeout observation of a man carrying a bag into the apartment building adds nothing.25 There was no proof of the man's identity, the bag's contents, his destination inside the building, or the car's owner.26
Any connection to defendant would be pure speculation.27 He maintained that the wiretapped conversations standing alone or together with the bag evidence failed to show defendant came dangerously close to possessing drugs.28 The calls merely indicated rejection of tickets without establishing the required proximity to actual possession.29
Whether defendant's rejection of the proffered drugs constituted an abandonment of the criminal enterprise that vitiated the attempt charge?30
Penal Law section 40.10(3) supplies an affirmative defense to an attempt charge when the defendant manifests a voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal purpose.31 The abandonment must be permanent rather than temporary or contingent.32 It must extend to the overall criminal enterprise rather than merely one instance of conduct. The defendant bears the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.33
No. The established facts show that defendant never raised or sought to present a renunciation defense at trial.34 Even after rejecting the March 21 delivery, defendant continued his efforts to obtain cocaine by telephoning Hector Vargas the following day to discuss better options and recommend that Vargas personally check the merchandise.35 Because any abandonment was limited to that particular quantity of cocaine and the overall enterprise of acquiring drugs persisted, the statutory defense does not apply and the rejection does not vitiate the attempt.
Defendant's rejection of the proffered drugs did not constitute an abandonment of the criminal enterprise that vitiated the attempt charge.36