People v. Argro, 58 N.Y.2d 816 (1983)

In a conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance, the weight of the controlled substance must be independently proven and cannot solely rely on an offer to sell a particular quantity.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, despite finding fault with the reasoning of the Appellate Division. The defendant challenged the trial court’s limitation on cross-examination of the People’s expert regarding the effect of moisture on the weight of the cocaine and argued that the mandatory minimum sentence was disproportionate. The Court of Appeals held that the weight of the controlled substance must be independently proven and cannot be based solely on an offer to sell a specific quantity, but upheld the conviction because the expert testimony established the weight independently.

Facts

The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. During the trial, the People’s expert testified about the laboratory analysis of the drugs. On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned the expert about the effect of moisture on the weight of the cocaine. The Appellate Division, in affirming, had incorrectly relied on the accomplice’s offer to sell “a little bit over” two ounces of cocaine as sufficient proof of weight.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, but the Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, upholding the conviction but disagreeing with the lower court’s reasoning regarding the proof of weight.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erroneously limited cross-examination of the People’s expert regarding the effect of moisture on the weight of the cocaine.
2. Whether the imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.
3. Whether the weight of the controlled substance, a necessary element of the crime, can be established solely by an offer to sell a specific quantity.

Holding

1. No, because defense counsel failed to properly preserve the issue for appeal by not calling the trial court’s attention to the purpose of the question or disputing the People’s claim of irrelevance.
2. No, to the extent any constitutional objection has been preserved for review.
3. No, because the weight of the material must be independently shown.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals addressed the defendant’s arguments regarding the limitation of cross-examination and the disproportionate sentence but found them unpreserved for appellate review. Regarding the cross-examination, the Court emphasized the importance of making known one’s position to the trial court to allow for correction of any error. As for the sentence, the court cited prior precedents (People v Donovan, 59 NY2d 834; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100) regarding constitutional objections to sentences.

The court explicitly rejected the Appellate Division’s reasoning that the accomplice’s offer to sell “a little bit over” two ounces of cocaine was sufficient to establish the weight for the crime of first-degree sale. Citing People v Kenny, 30 NY2d 154; People v Lawson, 84 Misc 2d 24; and People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, the court clarified that while proof of an offer may establish that a sale has occurred, the weight of the material must be independently proven. The conviction was ultimately affirmed because the People’s expert testimony provided an independent basis for establishing that the cocaine weighed more than two ounces, satisfying the statutory requirement. The court stated, “While proof of an offer may in some circumstances establish that a sale has occurred (see, Penal Law § 220.00 [1]), the weight of the material must be independently shown.”