People v. Samuels, 99 N.Y.2d 20 (2002)

To support a conviction for offering to sell a controlled substance, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence demonstrating the defendant’s intent and ability to complete the sale.

Summary

Defendants Samuels and Henderson were convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance for offering to sell crack cocaine to an undercover officer. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence of both intent and ability to sell, distinguishing the case from *People v. Mike*. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s statements and conduct indicative of a drug-selling operation, can establish the intent to sell. Furthermore, the presence of crack cocaine, acceptance of payment, and operation in a known drug-selling location are all factors supporting the inference that defendants had the ability to consummate a sale.

Facts

An undercover officer sought to purchase crack cocaine on a street corner known for drug sales. Samuels inquired about the officer’s needs and directed him to Henderson, who was sitting in a car. The officer gave Henderson prerecorded buy money. Instead of providing the crack, Henderson offered the officer a hit from a pipe containing what appeared to be crack, demanding the officer use the pipe before receiving the drugs to prove that he was not a police officer. Backup officers then arrived and arrested Samuels and Henderson. No crack, pipe or prerecorded buy money was recovered from the defendants.

Procedural History

Samuels and Henderson were indicted for third-degree sale of a controlled substance. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on insufficient evidence. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction, and the Court of Appeals granted the defendant’s motion to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the People presented sufficient evidence to establish that the defendants knowingly and unlawfully sold a narcotic drug by offering to perform a sale, specifically demonstrating both intent and ability to complete the sale.

2. Whether the trial court erred by declining to charge the jury specifically on the intent and ability requirements for an “offer to sell” theory.

Holding

1. Yes, because the defendants’ statements and conduct evinced an intent to sell crack cocaine, and several factors supported the conclusion that they had the ability to do so.

2. No, because the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the required standard.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court distinguished this case from *People v. Mike*, where the evidence of ability to sell was insufficient. Here, the undercover officer saw crack cocaine in the defendants’ possession, and the defendants engaged in conduct typical of drug sale operations. The court stated, “[A] defendant’s intent is the product of the invisible operation of his mind, to be determined, inevitably, on the basis of defendant’s statements and conduct.” The Court also emphasized that circumstantial evidence, such as operating at a known drug-selling location and accepting payment, can establish the ability to sell. While the trial court’s jury charge following the statutory language was sufficient, the Court advised that “the better practice for the future would be for jury instructions, in cases where the People allege an offer to sell drugs, to indicate that this theory requires proof that the defendant had the intent and ability to make the sale.” The Court noted that the jury was aware that “[A] person knowingly sells cocaine when that person is aware that he is selling cocaine,” and the issues were presented in the closing arguments. The Court upheld the Appellate Division’s decision.