People v. Bello, 92 N.Y.2d 527 (1998)
To establish accomplice liability in a drug sale, the prosecution must prove that the defendant shared the intent to sell drugs and intentionally aided the principal in the commission of the crime, exhibiting calculated behavior that furthered the sale.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the evidence presented to a grand jury was sufficient to indict Bello for criminal sale of a controlled substance based on an acting-in-concert theory. Bello, standing with Castellar, engaged in a brief conversation with an undercover officer seeking to buy crack cocaine. He asked how many bags she wanted and if she was a cop. Castellar then sold the officer a bag of crack cocaine. The Court of Appeals held that Bello’s actions in screening the buyer were sufficient to establish a prima facie case of accomplice liability, overturning the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the indictment and reinstating it. The court reasoned that Bello’s questions directly assisted in the sale, making him more than a mere information source.
Facts
An undercover officer approached Bello and Castellar and asked for “nicks” (street name for $5 bags of crack cocaine). Bello asked the officer how many she wanted and if she was a cop. Castellar then sold the officer a $10 bag of crack cocaine. Bello and Castellar were arrested shortly thereafter. The undercover officer identified both Bello and Castellar.
Procedural History
The Grand Jury indicted Bello and Castellar for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Castellar pleaded guilty. Bello moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the indictment. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to establish that Bello acted as an accomplice in the sale of a controlled substance.
Holding
Yes, because the Grand Jury could have found the evidence sufficient to establish that Bello’s participation in the drug transaction intentionally and directly assisted Castellar in consummating the sale.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that to dismiss an indictment for insufficient evidence, a reviewing court must determine whether the evidence, viewed favorably to the prosecution, would warrant a conviction. The prosecution must prove that the defendant shared the intent to sell drugs and intentionally aided the principal in the commission of the crime. The key is whether the defendant intentionally and directly assisted in achieving the ultimate goal of the enterprise – the illegal sale of a narcotic drug.
The court found that Bello’s questions (“how many” and “are you a cop”) demonstrated his knowledge of the object of the sale and his attempt to screen the potential buyer. This active screening assisted Castellar in deciding whether to make the sale. The court likened Bello’s behavior to that of individuals who “steer” buyers to sellers. The court emphasized that Bello’s presence was inextricably linked to the drug sale itself. "Defendant opened the door to potential buyers, screening them for hints as to their identity and interest; Castellar then closed the sale."
The Court rejected the argument that Castellar’s actions in selling a different quantity from a different location negated Bello’s involvement. The Court stated that negotiations do not always follow a single path and that it would be inappropriate to restrict the Grand Jury’s ability to draw logical inferences. "It was only after defendant’s questions elicited information useful to enable Castellar to decide whether she wanted to make the sale that Castellar actually sold the crack cocaine to the undercover officer."