People v. Tirado

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 38 N.Y.2d 955, 384 N.Y.S.2d 151, 348 N.E.2d 608, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2594

Decision Date: 3/23/1976

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Tirado, 38 N.Y.2d 955, 384 N.Y.S.2d 151, 348 N.E.2d 608, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2594 (1976)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1976


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 62 decisions
62
Citing decisions
5
Courts citing

Citations by decade

4
6
20
15
11
6
1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.49
N.Y.5
N.Y. Crim. Ct.2
2d Cir.1
Clinton Cty. Ct.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2025People v. Winston N.Y. Cty. Ct., Columbia Cty.
  • 2024People v. Murray N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2024Matter of Francis v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
  • 2022People v. Grovner N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2021People v. Manley N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2021People v. Rios N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2019People v. Williams N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2019People v. Moses N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2018Phin v. City of New York N.Y. App. Div.
  • 2017People v. Reyes N.Y. App. Div.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jacque Tirado, Appellant.

Attorneys

  • Irving Paul for appellant.
  • Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Judith K. Rubinstein and Peter L. Zimroth of counsel), for respondent.
majority

Memorandum. Order affirmed, on the opinion of Mr. Presiding Justice Harold A. Stevens at the Appellate Division. With respect to the views in the dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division, the trial court’s charge concerning possession was eminently correct. Possession if joint is no less possession. The circumstances established the operation of a narcotics "factory”, and the inference that the tenant, as well as all those found in the apartment, were engaged in the illicit enterprise, was irresistible and therefore entitled the court to charge as it did and for the jury to find the defendant guilty as it did. There was therefore no need for a statutory presumption.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.