There was sufficient indication that defendant may have acted with one or more accomplices in the drug transaction to justify the introduction of testimony by a police expert on the workings of street-level drug operations in order to explain the absence of buy money and drugs on defendant at the time of her arrest. The testimony was sufficiently limited in scope and did not suggest that defendant was involved in a large-scale drug operation (see, People v Johnson,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PEOPLE v. BROWN
276 A.D.2d 429 (2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 18
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TARKISHA BROWN, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided October 26, 2000.
Decided October 26, 2000.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
