NY Court of Appeals grants new trial in drug case

In a split decision, New York state’s highest court has granted a new trial in a drug case because the judge let the prosecution use the defendant’s previous criminal convictions.

Generally, evidence of a defendant’s prior possession of drugs is not admissible at trial to show their intent to sell drugs, or knowing possession of drugs, on another occasion, Judge Shirley Troutman wrote in the decision for the Court of Appeals panel.

Evidence of a defendant’s uncharged crimes, or prior misconduct, “is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case and tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged,” she wrote.

Because the evidence of a prior incident involving defendant Lashawn Miller Henderson’s possession of drugs was not logically connected to any specific material issue in the separate drug possession case, apart from his propensity for possessing drugs, the judge erred in admitting that evidence, she wrote.

“Inasmuch as this error was not harmless, we reverse and remit for defendant to receive a new trial,” she wrote.

In October 2019, police executed a search warrant at Henderson’s home in Rochester. Henderson and his girlfriend were in bed in the south bedroom. Henderson’s father was in the west bedroom with the defendant’s 11-year-old sister. And his grandmother was in the living room.

Police found cocaine, scales, and packaging materials. They arrested and charged every adult in the home.

Henderson and his father were indicted on three counts of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, one count of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and four counts of second-degree criminally using drug paraphernalia.

The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of Henderson’s conviction of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance where narcotics were found in his vehicle in 2017. The judge ruled the evidence was admissible.

The jury acquitted Henderson of the two counts relating to cocaine found in his father’s bedroom, but convicted him of the counts relating to cocaine and paraphernalia found in the living room and the south bedroom.

He was sentenced to eight years in prison and three years of post-release supervision.

In a split decision, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, stating that “the testimony regarding defendant’s prior conviction is relevant and admissible with respect to the issue of defendant’s intent to sell drugs.”

The Court further held that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.”

“The main issue at trial was whether defendant had constructive or knowing possession of the contraband distributed throughout three rooms in the apartment,” Troutman wrote.

The Court of Appeals majority ruled that Henderson’s possession of cocaine in his car in 2017 was not relevant.

“The two incidents involved different locations, different circumstances, different theories of possession, and took place around two years apart,” she wrote.

Defendant’s plea of guilty to possessing cocaine found in a car registered to him in 2017 does not shed light on whether he had constructively possessed the cocaine and paraphernalia in an apartment where he was sleeping in 2019, she wrote.

The only significant commonality between the 2017 and 2019 incidents is defendant’s being accused of possessing cocaine in both instances.

Judge Anthony Cannataro dissented, while judges Michael J. Garcia and Madeline Singas concurred.

“Contrary to the majority, I would hold that the trial court properly admitted the Molineux evidence … But even if it was error to admit the Molineux evidence, I would nevertheless hold that any error was harmless,” he wrote.

I agree with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that “the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect,” he wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035