People v. Butts, 84 N.Y.2d 585 (1994)
To convict a defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under Penal Law § 220.41 (1), the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly sold at least one-half ounce of a substance containing a narcotic drug; this knowledge requirement applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal when People v. Ryan was decided.
Summary
Butts was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The prosecution’s evidence included statistical sampling to estimate the drug’s weight. Butts argued the evidence failed to prove he knew the contraband weighed at least one-half ounce and that the jury should have been instructed on this knowledge requirement. The New York Court of Appeals held that the knowledge requirement of People v. Ryan applies retroactively to cases on direct appeal. While the evidence was sufficient to establish the weight of the drugs, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the knowledge element warranted a new trial.
Facts
An undercover detective purchased heroin from Butts on multiple occasions. On two occasions, Butts contacted a third party who delivered the drugs. During one transaction, Butts directed the undercover agent into a shop where another individual dropped the drugs. The undercover agent paid Butts, who counted the money and passed it on. The prosecution presented expert testimony using statistical sampling to estimate the weight of the drugs sold on June 30 and September 26, 1988, exceeded one-half ounce.
Procedural History
Butts was convicted in Supreme Court of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions, rejecting Butts’s argument regarding the weight of the contraband and the expert’s qualifications. A dissenting Justice granted Butts leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the weight of the contraband to support a conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that the prosecution was required to prove Butts’s knowledge of the weight of the contraband.
3. Whether the ruling in People v. Ryan, requiring proof of knowledge of drug weight, applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal.
Holding
1. Yes, because the jury was entitled to credit the statistical testimony of the witness as sufficient evidence of the weight of the controlled substance.
2. Yes, because the knowledge requirement established in People v. Ryan applies to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.
3. Yes, because People v. Ryan is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal at the time of that decision.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the expert’s testimony on statistical sampling was admissible because it helped clarify a technical issue beyond the ken of the typical juror. Citing People v. Argro, the Court held that it was for the jury to decide whether the expert had adequately analyzed the contents and whether his opinion was entitled to be credited.
Regarding the knowledge requirement, the Court relied on People v. Ryan, which held that the term “knowingly” in Penal Law § 220.18 applies not only to the possession of the illicit substance itself but also to the weight of the substance. The Court stated that “a judicial decision construing the words of a statute * * * does not constitute the creation of a new legal principle” (quoting Gurnee v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 55 NY2d 184, 192). Therefore, Ryan should be applied retroactively.
The Court also applied the three-part test from People v. Pepper (purpose of the new rule, reliance on the old rule, and effect of the new rule on the administration of justice) and concluded that retroactive application was appropriate. The Court stated, “The knowledge of the weight requirement is determinative of whether a particular accused has actually committed the crime charged.”
The Court found sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that Butts knew he was participating in the sale of at least one-half ounce of a substance containing heroin, citing the price negotiations and Butts’s handling of the drugs. Because the jury was not instructed on this knowledge requirement a new trial was warranted.