10 N.Y.3d 647 (2008)

Small amounts of marihuana, even when possessed by inmates in detention facilities, do not automatically constitute “dangerous contraband” under New York Penal Law § 205.00(4) and § 205.25(2); rather, the item must have characteristics creating a substantial probability of causing death, serious injury, escape, or major threats to institutional safety.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether possessing small amounts of marihuana in prison constituted the felony of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The Court held that such small amounts of marihuana do not automatically qualify as “dangerous contraband.” The Court reasoned that a broad interpretation would nullify the misdemeanor offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree and that the legislative history indicated a narrower definition was intended. The Court emphasized that for an item to be considered “dangerous contraband,” its characteristics must create a substantial probability of causing death, serious injury, escape, or other major threats to the facility.

Facts

In People v. Salters, an inmate’s girlfriend was caught attempting to smuggle 9.3 grams of marihuana into a correctional facility. In People v. Finley, an inmate was found with three marihuana joints in a correctional facility. In both cases, the inmates were charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree, a felony, based on the assertion that the marihuana was “dangerous contraband.” The prosecution argued that the marihuana could be used in a manner that endangered the safety and security of the detention facilities.

Procedural History

In Salters, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to reduce the charges to a misdemeanor and the Appellate Division affirmed the felony conviction. In Finley, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the felony charge but allowed a jury charge on the lesser-included misdemeanor; the Appellate Division affirmed the felony conviction. Both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether small amounts of marihuana, such as those possessed by the defendants, constitute “dangerous contraband” under Penal Law § 205.00(4) and § 205.25(2), thereby justifying a felony conviction for promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Holding

No, because the term “dangerous contraband” requires a showing that the item is likely to cause death or serious injury, facilitate an escape, or bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security. The small amounts of marihuana in these cases did not meet that standard.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the statute distinguishes between “contraband” and “dangerous contraband,” with the latter carrying more severe penalties. The Court emphasized that the term “use” in the definition of dangerous contraband refers to the application or employment of the item. The Court rejected the People’s argument that any item that could lead to altercations and inmate disobedience should be considered dangerous contraband, as this would effectively nullify the misdemeanor crime of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. The Court relied on the legislative history of the prison contraband provisions, noting that the felony offense was originally intended to address items that could endanger life or limb. The Court stated, “We therefore conclude that the test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security.” The Court also noted the Marihuana Reform Act of 1977, which decriminalized possession of small amounts of marihuana, indicating a more lenient legislative approach. The Court concluded that the small amounts of marihuana in these cases did not present a substantial probability of causing the harms associated with “dangerous contraband.” Dissenting, Judge Pigott argued that in Salters, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that the 9.3 grams of marihuana could be sold or bartered, potentially leading to violent altercations. However, Judge Pigott concurred that the trial court erred by not charging the lesser included offense.