People v. Roche, 88 N.Y.2d 974 (1996)
A jury instruction on the agency defense in a criminal sale of a controlled substance case is sufficient when it accurately conveys that the jury can consider any benefit received from the buyer as supportive of the defense.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree for selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer. At trial, she argued an agency defense, claiming she bought the drugs on the officer’s behalf. She appealed, arguing the trial court’s charge to the jury on the agency defense was insufficient under People v. Andujas. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury instruction was adequate because it correctly stated that the jury could consider any benefit received from the buyer when deciding if the defendant acted as the buyer’s agent.
Facts
The defendant sold two vials of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer.
At trial, the defendant claimed the officer asked her to get crack for him and offered to “get her high.”
She testified she bought four vials, kept two for herself, and expected to barter sex later for the officer providing her with crack.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
She appealed, arguing the trial court’s jury charge on the agency defense was insufficient.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the agency defense, specifically whether the instruction failed to adequately convey that any benefit received from the buyer could support the defense.
Holding
No, because the jury charge, taken as a whole, accurately instructed the jury that it could consider any benefit received from the buyer as supportive of the agency defense.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found no merit in the defendant’s argument that the trial court should have expanded its charge on the agency defense under People v. Andujas, 79 N.Y.2d 113.
The court correctly instructed the jury that it could consider any benefit received from the buyer as supportive of an agency defense.
The Court determined that, “in that context, the charge as a whole accurately provided the jury with the proper instruction (see, e.g., People v Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821; People v Warren, 76 N.Y.2d 773).”
The Court emphasized that the key is that the charge as a whole conveys the proper understanding of the law. It did not require a specific formulation beyond ensuring the jury understood that benefits from the buyer could support the defense.