People v. Andujas, 79 N.Y.2d 113 (1992)

r
r

A defendant is not entitled to an agency defense instruction in a drug sale case unless there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant acted solely as the buyer’s agent, a mere extension or instrumentality of the buyer.

r
r

Summary

r

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the agency defense in a case where the defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Court held that the agency defense instruction was not warranted because no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that the defendant, who directed a potential purchaser to a seller of narcotics, was acting as an agent of that purchaser. The Court emphasized that the defendant’s limited interaction with the buyer and the lack of any pre-existing relationship precluded the inference that the defendant acted as the buyer’s agent.

r
r

Facts

r

Undercover Officer Cortes approached a codefendant, Cedeno, seeking to purchase cocaine. Cedeno told her to wait. While waiting, Cortes asked the defendant, who was standing nearby, for cocaine. The defendant told Cortes to