From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 17, 1991
178 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 17, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.).


An undercover police officer approached defendant, who was positioned outside of a building from which narcotics were known to be sold. The defendant nodded when the officer asked if "they were working" and apparently uttered a code phrase that signaled someone inside to open the door. The officer entered the building and purchased cocaine from individuals inside. Upon completing the transaction, the officer noticed that the defendant was still positioned outside the door. From this evidence, and the fact that the officer had gained access to the premises to purchase narcotics with the similar aid of a steerer/lookout on the previous visit, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was acting in concert to possess and sell narcotics (see, People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381).

Although unpreserved for review, we find that the trial court properly admitted as expert testimony the police officer's explanations of the "jargon" associated with the street drug trade. Such testimony served to clarify an issue that is beyond the professional or technical knowledge of the typical juror (see, People v Kincey, 168 A.D.2d 231).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Hinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 17, 1991
178 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Hinton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS HINTON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 17, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 279 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 63

Citing Cases

People v. Vizzini

He had never before testified at a drug trial. The OCTF investigator's lack of relevant experience…

People v. Resek

The judgment should also be reversed because the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness invaded the…