New York v. Kaplan
Court of Appeals of the State of New York
556 N.E.2d 415, 76 N.Y.2d 140, 556 N.Y.S.2d 976 (1990)
- Written by Caroline Milne, JD
Facts
Murray Kaplan (defendant) was involved in a cocaine ring led by Kaplan’s cousin, Mike. During a police investigation into the operation, Detective Janis Grasso posed as a drug courier and arranged to purchase cocaine from Mike. When Grasso arrived at Mike’s office, Mike told Kaplan, who was present at the office, to “take care of” Grasso. Kaplan then retrieved a manila envelope from a file cabinet and placed it in front of Grasso. In exchange, Grasso handed Kaplan $15,000 in cash. Kaplan took the money and immediately began to count it. Kaplan was subsequently charged as an accomplice to criminal sale of a narcotic. At trial, the defense requested the court to charge the jury that, to find Kaplan guilty as an accomplice, the jury must find that Kaplan had both specific intent to sell a narcotic and a shared intent or purpose with the principal actors. The court denied counsel’s request, noting that the mens rea required for criminal sale was not the specific intent to make a sale, but the knowledge that the substance sold was a narcotic. The court then instructed the jury that to be found guilty as an accomplice, Kaplan must have acted with knowledge that he was selling cocaine and must have intentionally aided in the sale of the cocaine. Kaplan was convicted. The appellate division affirmed. The court of appeals granted Kaplan leave to appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Titone, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
