People v. Abbamonte, 43 N.Y.2d 56 (1977)

New York’s Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 40.20) prohibits separate prosecutions for two offenses based on the same act or criminal transaction, with limited exceptions designed to balance individual rights and the state’s interest in prosecuting crime.

Summary

Defendants, convicted in federal court for conspiracy to violate drug laws, sought to prohibit a subsequent state prosecution for criminal possession of the same drugs, arguing double jeopardy. The New York Court of Appeals considered whether the state prosecution was barred under CPL 40.20, which generally prohibits separate prosecutions for offenses arising from the same criminal transaction but includes several exceptions. The court held that the state prosecution was barred because the federal conspiracy and state possession charges arose from the same criminal transaction, and none of the statutory exceptions applied.

Facts

Based on surveillance, authorities uncovered a narcotics distribution organization involving the defendants. On December 15, 1971, several defendants were observed carrying empty bags into a residence and leaving with them filled. They were arrested with over a pound of heroin each. A search of the residence yielded more narcotics, money, weapons, and drug packaging materials.

Procedural History

The defendants were initially indicted by a Bronx County Grand Jury on December 28, 1971, for criminal possession of a dangerous drug. Subsequently, in November 1972, a federal grand jury indicted the defendants for conspiracy to distribute and possess narcotics. The federal prosecution proceeded first, resulting in convictions that were affirmed on appeal. The Appellate Division then granted the defendants’ petition to prohibit the state prosecution, concluding that CPL 40.20 barred it. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order to conform to the specific relief sought and affirmed as modified.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the state prosecution for criminal possession of dangerous drugs is barred by a prior federal prosecution for conspiracy to distribute and possess the same drugs, where possession of the drugs was an overt act alleged and proved in the federal prosecution, under the “same transaction” test of CPL 40.20.
2. Whether the exceptions in CPL 40.20(2)(a), (b), or (c) apply to permit the state prosecution despite the prior federal conviction.

Holding

1. Yes, the state prosecution is barred because the federal conspiracy and state possession charges arose from the same “criminal transaction” as defined in CPL 40.10(2).
2. No, none of the exceptions in CPL 40.20(2)(a), (b), or (c) apply because the offenses do not have substantially different elements, are not designed to prevent very different kinds of harm, and do not fall under the exception for possession and use of contraband matter.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals found that the defendants’ conduct constituted integral parts of a single criminal venture, satisfying the definition of “criminal transaction” under CPL 40.20(2). Even if no “time and circumstance” nexus existed, the acts were closely related in criminal purpose. The court rejected the argument that the conspiracy and possession charges had substantially different elements under CPL 40.20(2)(a) because the same possession of the same drugs was charged and proven in the federal case. The argument that conspiracy presents a greater threat to the public, thus invoking CPL 40.20(2)(b), was also rejected because the state and federal laws were aimed at the same evil: narcotics trafficking. Finally, the court cited Matter of Cirillo v. Justices of Supreme Ct. of State of N.Y., 34 NY2d 990 (1974) in rejecting the application of CPL 40.20(2)(c). The court emphasized the legislative intent behind CPL 40.20, which adopted a