People v. Nowlan

Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered January 29, 2014, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts). Defendant was indicted on two counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, stemming from his sale of heroin to a confidential informant (hereinafter Cl) on two occasions in the driveway of his home. At a combined Molineux / Sandoval hearing, defendant stated his intention to assert an agency defense. In anticipation of that strategy, County Court ruled that it would permit the People to elicit testimony related to defendant’s prior burglary conviction and prior sales of heroin and synthetic marihuana. At the close of the proof at trial, the court ruled that defendant had failed to establish entitlement to the agency charge and did not give the related jury instruction. The jury thereafter found defendant guilty as charged, and he was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 18 years to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. Initially, defendant failed to renew his motion to dismiss the charges at the close of his proof and, as such, his contention regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for our review (see People *1147 v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Reeves, 124 AD3d 1068, 1068 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1076 [2015]; People v Robinson, 123 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 992 [2015]; People v Kennedy, 75 AD3d 766, 767 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 853 [2010]). “Under the agency doctrine, ‘a person who acts solely as the agent of a buyer in procuring drugs for the buyer is not guilty of selling the drug to the buyer, or of possessing it with intent to sell it to the buyer’ ” (People v Kramer, 118 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2014], quoting People v Watson, 20 NY3d 182, 185 [2012] [citation omitted]; see People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 20 [2013]). “The issue of whether a defendant is criminally responsible as a seller, or merely a purchaser doing a favor for a friend, is generally a factual question for the jury to resolve on the circumstances of the particular case” (People v Croley, 216 AD2d 690, 690 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 793 [1995]; see People v Lam Lek Chong, 45 NY2d 64, 74-75 [1978], cert denied 439 US 935 [1978]). “A trial court must grant a request for an agency charge when, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, some evidence, however slight[,] supports the inference that the [defendant] was acting, in effect, as an extension of the buyer” (People v Monykuc, 97 AD3d 900, 902 [2012] [internal quotation marks, citations, brackets and ellipsis omitted]; see People v Magee, 263 AD2d 763, 765 [1999]). Here, defendant did not initiate the subject transactions. Rather, the Cl, who was acquainted with defendant, contacted him to initiate both buys. Before the first buy, defendant said to the Cl, with regard to the supplier, “when she meets me and you she’s going to sell us the eight,” which shows that defendant aligned himself with the Cl on the buyer’s side of the transaction. At the time of the first buy, defendant and the Cl met in defendant’s driveway and talked about defendant’s girlfriend, car and job while they waited for the supplier to arrive with the drugs. When the supplier arrived, the Cl asked defendant to get the drugs from her so that he could see them before he paid, and defendant complied. Defendant retrieved nine bags of heroin from the supplier, explaining to the Cl that there were “nine here cause [he was] gonna get one too”; again, he was identifying himself on the buyer’s side of the transaction. Defendant’s girlfriend testified that he did not benefit from the sales to the CL While defendant did exhibit some arguably salesman-like behavior by touting the quality of the drugs, such statements do not preclude a reasonable view of the evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v Ortiz, 76 *1148 NY2d 446, 448 [1990]), that he acted solely on behalf of the buyer. One may infer from such statements that defendant was simply making conversation, particularly in light of the evidence that defendant did not profit from the sales. Thus, we agree with defendant that the jury should have been instructed on the applicable law and been afforded the opportunity to decide whether defendant acted solely as the Cl’s agent (see People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d at 21-22; People v Monykuc, 97 AD3d at 902). * To the extent that defendant’s remaining arguments have not been rendered academic, they have been found to be without merit. McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Warren County for a new trial. ' Footnotes [*] We also find County Court’s denial of defendant’s request for the jury charge troubling in light of the court’s Molineux ruling that was based upon defendant’s reliance on the agency defense.