People v. Mclean, 81 N.Y.2d 409 (1993)
When a jury is instructed on a theory of criminal liability unsupported by sufficient evidence, a general guilty verdict will be reversed unless the error is harmless; harmless error analysis applies unless the error involves an illegal theory leading to an unconstitutional conviction.
Summary
Mclean was convicted of drug offenses. The trial court instructed the jury on the “drug factory” presumption, allowing them to infer knowing possession based on the presence of drugs in open view under circumstances indicating intent to prepare them for sale. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support the drug factory presumption because the drugs were concealed. The court held that submitting this unsupported theory was not harmless error because the jury returned a general verdict, making it impossible to know if they relied on the presumption. The dissent argued that the error was an evidentiary charge subject to harmless error analysis and that the evidence of possession was overwhelming. The dissent also cited that the error was not an illegal ground for conviction in the sense of Griffin v. United States.
Facts
Police raided an apartment and found Mclean and a co-defendant present. Drugs were discovered concealed behind a couch. The prosecution presented evidence of prior drug sales observed at the apartment. At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the “drug factory presumption,” stating the jury could infer knowing possession of the drugs based on their being in open view under circumstances evincing an intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package or otherwise prepare for sale. Mclean was convicted of drug possession and sales.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Mclean of drug possession and sales. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the drug factory presumption and that the error was not harmless.
Issue(s)
- Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the “drug factory” presumption of knowing possession of a controlled substance?
- Whether submitting such an unsupported theory to the jury was reversible error, or subject to harmless error analysis?
Holding
- Yes, because there was insufficient evidence to support the drug factory presumption since the drugs were not in open view.
- Yes, reversible error, because the jury returned a general verdict, and it’s impossible to determine if they relied on the presumption.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that charging the jury on the “drug factory” presumption when the drugs were concealed was error. Citing Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991), the Court distinguished between submitting a theory of liability that is unconstitutional or illegal and submitting one that is merely unsupported by sufficient evidence. The Court stated that because the jury returned a general verdict, it was impossible to determine whether they relied on the improperly charged presumption. The Court distinguished this case from People v. Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489 (1988), where a similar error was deemed harmless. Here, there was some evidence from which the jury might have applied the drug factory presumption, making it impossible to say the error was harmless. The dissent argued that the drug factory presumption is merely an evidentiary charge, not a theory of liability, and should be subject to harmless error analysis like any other erroneous evidentiary ruling. The dissent also emphasized the overwhelming evidence of Mclean’s possession and control over the drugs. The dissent cited Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970), as properly applying harmless error analysis to the claim that it was error to charge a statutory presumption of criminal distribution from the defendant’s possession of heroin, stating, “So, too, the instruction on the presumption is beside the point, since even if invalid, it was harmless error; the jury must have believed the possession evidence which in itself established a distribution barred by the statute”.