Opinion ID: 2214563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: People v Salters

Text: On March 31, 2004, the grand jury of Franklin County issued a two-count indictment charging defendant Salters with attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, a class E felony, and fifth-degree conspiracy, a class A misdemeanor ( see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.25 [2]; § 105.05 [1]). These charges arose out of an investigation conducted by Investigator Dennis Klose of the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) Inspector General's Narcotics Unit. While monitoring a phone call between defendant and his girlfriend, Klose heard what he believed was a plan to smuggle narcotics into Bare Hill Correctional Facility, where defendant was incarcerated. On November 16, 2003, prison officials stopped defendant's girlfriend, after she passed through security, and she admitted to concealing marihuana. She was then driven to a nearby State Police barracks, where she surrendered 9.3 grams of marihuanaless than one third of an ounce. Prior to trial, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment or, alternatively, to reduce the charges to attempted promoting prison contraband in the second degree and sixth-degree conspiracy, both misdemeanors. Relying upon the Appellate Division's decision in People v McCrae (297 AD2d 878 [3d Dept 2002]), which reasoned that marihuana was dangerous contraband because the use of illegal drugs by inmates ... can result in disruptive and dangerous behavior among the inmate population ( id. at 878), Supreme Court declined to dismiss the indictment. At trial, Senior Investigator James Bezio, who had extensive experience with drug investigations during his 16 years with the Narcotics Unit, testified that 9.3 grams of marihuana is an amount large enough to be distributed to other inmates, which created two possible problems. First, because ingestion of marijuana would alter inmates' mental states, those who took the drug could potentially become involved in altercations or refuse to obey correction officers' orders. Second, if an inmate obtained marihuana from a prison dealer and then refused, or was unable, to pay for it, an inmate-on-inmate assault might occur, possibly resulting in injury to correction officers. Bezio acknowledged on cross-examination that, within the illicit prison barter system, an altercation between inmates could even occur over certain banned perishables, leading guards to become involved and possibly hurt. Indeed, he speculated that anything that's smuggled into the barter system could be considered dangerous, if the definition of dangerous were coextensive with a potential for producing altercations among inmates and prison staff. At the close of evidence, defendant sought to have the lesser-included misdemeanorattempted promoting prison contraband in the second degreesubmitted to the jury ( see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 205.20 [2]). Supreme Court denied that request, relying on McCrae. Thereafter, the jury convicted defendant of both charged crimes, and Supreme Court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years on the felony attempted promoting prison contraband count and a concurrent one-year determinate sentence on the conspiracy count, to run consecutively to the term defendant was then serving. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Bezio's testimony was legally sufficient to support the felony contraband conviction because it provided facility-specific proof that 9.3 grams of marihuana is an amount that could be sold or distributed, thereby potentially precipitating altercations and disobedience that could endanger[] the security and safety of staff and inmates (30 AD3d 903, 905 [2006]). We now modify and remit to Supreme Court for resentencing.