Articles Posted in Gun Possession

Published on:

In this criminal case, the Plaintiff is the mother of and Administratrix of the Estate of her deceased son. In April 2006, the son, who was age 17 at the time, was in the backyard of the premises visiting with his friend. The owner of the premises was the defendant.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that at approximately 1:50 p.m., while the son and his friend were working on a car in the backyard, the son was fatally shot by a gunman who approached the two boys in the backyard. When the police arrived on the scene, the son, who was still conscious, told the police that he was shot by someone who came up and shot him from the adjoining yard. He was taken to a Hospital where he was operated on for his gun shot wound. However, at 8:26 a.m. the next morning, he died, never regaining consciousness. An individual, who was not the shooter, was arrested that day for possession of a weapon which was kept in the residence. Five months later, the police arrested another individual and charged him with the murder of the deceased.

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of a child and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. She now moves the Court for an order dismissing the charge of endangering the welfare of a child for facial insufficiency.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that an accusatory instrument upon which the defendant may be held for trial “must allege facts of an evidentiary character’ demonstrating reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime charged.” Further, valid criminal court information must contain non-hearsay factual allegations which, if true, “establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof.” CPL §100.40(1)(c).

Continue reading

Published on:

Thus, in one case, which was factually quite similar to this case, the officer saw “a heavy object slide against the material in the right pocket” of defendant’s long outer coat. The officer tapped the pocket and “on feeling a hard object, reached into the pocket and removed a .22 calibre six-inch revolver with six rounds of live ammunition.” Suppression was directed because defendant “had done nothing wrong” before the officer reached into defendant’s pocket and because the officer could not tell “what the heavy object appeared to be by looking at the pocket”. Nothing in “defendant’s standing behind the pimp, in his nervousness or his slouched stature, or the fact that he had his hands in his coat pockets and removed them very slowly when requested to do so, or that a heavy object slid against the material of defendant’s pocket can be said to be reasonably referable to or indicative of the presence of a revolver.”

The officer here initially testified that all he wanted was a reasonable answer to his query about the bulky and weighty object in defendant’s pocket, and defendant then would have been free to go “on his way without my ever touching his pocket.” He later added that to satisfy his own curiosity he probably still would have touched the pocket if defendant had not shown him its contents. Such a touch would have been an unwarranted intrusion. The fact that defendant’s “‘pocket was hanging’, ‘like something heavy was in it’ ” was held insufficient as a basis for a frisk or search for a revolver in. On the facts here, it is plain there was no lawful predicate for the search.

Continue reading

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, on May 3, 1991, defendant was approached by the drug dealer on West 151st Street in Manhattan. The drug dealer asked defendant to sell him $8 worth of crack. Defendant insisted that the drug dealer wait for another buyer to come along because he did not want to retrieve such a small amount of drugs from his supply. When the drug dealer persisted, defendant threw his $8 on the ground and a fight broke out. During the fight, defendant left to retrieve a semiautomatic gun from an adjacent building while defendant’s associate resumed the fight with the drug dealer. When defendant returned with the pistol, the drug dealer fled into the lobby of a nearby apartment building, located at 528 West 151st Street.

A New York Criminal Possession of a Weapon Lawyer said that, a bystander and building resident both testified that they were in the process of trying to unlock the interior door leading in from the lobby when the drug dealer ran into the lobby, bleeding and upset, and asked them to hurry. Moments later, defendant approached the entrance to 528 West 151st Street, stood outside the exterior door of the building, pointed his weapon through a missing windowpane in the door, and fired four rounds into the lobby, and then immediately fled the scene. The building resident escaped unharmed, the bystander suffered a non-lethal gunshot wound to the waist, and the rug dealer died in the hospital as a result of one bullet penetrating his torso. The building resident testified that the lobby was well-lit and she could clearly identify defendant’s upper body and face. Four spent .25 caliber shells were recovered from the building lobby.

Continue reading

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was observed by Officers walking in front of a building on Lexington Avenue. The officers also observed through the glass doors of that building that two people were standing in the vestibule area and appeared to be having an argument. The second Officer entered the vestibule area. The other officer approached the defendant and asked him what he was doing. He did not give defendant an opportunity to answer but, rather, pressed a second question: whether defendant knew the two people in the hallway. Defendant denied knowing them. The officer then directed defendant into the hallway.

A New York Criminal Possession of a Lawyer said that, meanwhile, in the hallway, the second Officer was frisking one individual, who was facing the wall with his hands stretched upward against the wall. The second person observed in the hallway was in a corner of the vestibule watching the proceedings. When the first Officer came into the hallway, no weapons had yet been found in the possession of either the individual or the defendant. Ultimately, defendant was found to be in criminal possession of a weapon and an ammunition clip. As they passed the doorway, the officers looked through the glass door and saw two men, in the vestibule talking and waving their arms. The officers parked their car and continued to observe all three men. The two men in the hallway appeared to be having an argument, and one of the men, had an amount of currency in his hands. Defendant continued going back and forth between the apartment house door and the curb, and looking into the hallway. The actions of these three men appeared to the officers to match a pattern of so-called hallway robberies, with the man on the street as a lookout.

Continue reading

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted after trial of first degree reckless endangerment and second degree criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division modified, finding insufficient evidence to support the conviction for reckless endangerment but affirming the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon. On these cross appeals, the People maintain the reckless endangerment charge was sufficiently proven and defendant contends the count in the indictment charging him with criminal possession of a weapon should have been dismissed because it was duplicitous.

A New York Gun Crime Lawyer said that, the People’s evidence established that at approximately 6:15 A.M. on the morning of August 1, 1982, defendant and another man confronted the victim as he was returning home and demanded money from him, apparently to satisfy a debt. When the victim refused to pay them, a scuffle developed and defendant produced a pistol. He dropped it during the fight, however, and when the gun hit the ground it fired. The victim got away from the men and tried to run and hide but defendant found him and repeatedly struck him with the weapon. The victim eventually was able to retreat to his apartment.

Continue reading

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in the early morning hours of December 1, 1990, two police officers received a radio report, based on anonymously provided information, that there had been a fight at 1411 Grand Concourse and that one of those present at the site of the altercation had a knife. Minimal descriptions were provided of two persons: one of them reportedly wore a red jacket and the other a dark jacket with a white stripe.

A New York Criminal Possession of a Weapon Lawyer said that, shortly after arriving at 1411 Grand Concourse, the responding officers were called to the aid of another officer at a different location. Upon their return a few minutes later to the scene of the incident described in the radio run, the officers observed three men none of whom wore items of clothing remotely resembling those mentioned over the radio. No one was seen with a knife and there was no sign of any disturbance. Nevertheless, the officers approached the men and, as they did so, one of the men, the defendant, ran away. The officers pursued him on foot and were assisted by several police cars. Less than a minute after the initiation of the chase, the defendant discarded a gun. Seconds later he was apprehended and eventually charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court in Albany County. The judgment convicted the defendant of murder in the second degree, conspiracy in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendant motioned to suppress a gun, the magazine in the gun, and nine rounds of ammunition in the magazine at a hearing before the court.

During the hearing the People called one witness, a police officer who was assigned to the Anti-Crime Unit of the 75th precinct at the relevant times.

Continue reading

Contact Information