People v. WilsonPeople v. Wilson
Judgment,
Expert testimony on the roles played by participants in typical street-level drug sales was properly admitted, even though the absence of buy money on defendant was explained by the fact that he was seen handing the money to another person, from whom it was recovered. The expert testimony was necessary to explain why defendant gave away the proceeds of the sale he had just completed, and was relevant as background to explain the accomplice’s role, regardless of whether or not defendant was charged as a principal. Moreover, at the time the evidence was received, the People were still proceeding under an acting-in-concert theory, notwithstanding that the court ultimately decided that it was unnecessary to instruct the jury on accessorial liability (cf., People v Herminio D.,
The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker,
Defendant’s claim concerning replacement of a sworn juror requires preservation (see, People v Agramonte,