People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509 (1995)
Under New York Penal Law, the term “sell,” concerning controlled substances, includes any transfer of a controlled substance from one person to another, even without monetary exchange or commercial benefit.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a “handoff” of narcotics between two individuals to avoid police detection constitutes a “sale” under Penal Law § 220.00(1). The police observed Starling passing a bag of cocaine to a juvenile. Starling was charged with criminal sale and possession with intent to sell. The Court held that the transfer of drugs, even without monetary consideration, falls within the statutory definition of “sell,” which includes “give or dispose of to another.” The Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing the legislature’s intent to encompass any form of transfer, regardless of commercial nature.
Facts
Police officers observed Starling handing a small paper bag to a juvenile on a street corner after observing Starling exchanging an item from the bag for what appeared to be paper currency with an unknown third party. Upon approaching Starling, he handed the bag to a juvenile. The juvenile discarded the bag, which was found to contain seven ziplock bags of cocaine. $376 was recovered from Starling during arrest.
Procedural History
Starling was indicted on charges of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1]). Starling moved for a trial order of dismissal, arguing the prosecution failed to prove a “sale” or intent to sell. The trial court denied the motions. The Appellate Division affirmed Starling’s conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether, under Penal Law § 220.00(1), a “handoff” of narcotics between two individuals, absent evidence of monetary exchange or other consideration, constitutes a “sale”?
Holding
Yes, because the statutory definition of “sell” includes “to give or dispose of to another,” encompassing any transfer of a controlled substance, regardless of whether it is commercial in nature.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the broad statutory definition of “sell” in Penal Law § 220.00(1), which includes “to sell, exchange, give or dispose of to another.” This definition demonstrates the Legislature’s intent to include any form of transfer, rejecting the need for commercial elements. The Court cited People v. Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 72 stating that the legislative intent was to “include any form of transfer of a controlled substance from one person to another”. The court also referred to People v. Herring, 83 NY2d 780, 782, emphasizing that “a defendant may be guilty as a seller even if he does not receive any consideration for the transfer of drugs to the buyer”. The Court rejected Starling’s argument that the transfer could not be a sale because the juvenile may have jointly possessed the drugs. The Court stated that the record lacked sufficient evidence that the juvenile exercised any control over the contraband prior to the handoff. Therefore, the trial court properly declined to charge the jury on the concepts of joint, constructive and temporary possession. Regarding Starling’s claim that the court failed to comply with the notice requirements of CPL 310.30 in responding to the jury’s notes, the Court found that because the court read the content of the jury’s notes in open court prior to responding, this case was distinguishable from People v. O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270. Defense counsel was given notice of the contents of the jury notes and had knowledge of the substance of the court’s intended response and counsel’s silence at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the claim unpreserved and unreviewable.