Articles Posted in Gun Possession

In this case, the appellate court considered whether evidence should have been suppressed because the defendant’s consent to having his car searched was not voluntary.

In People v. Wright-Hale, the arresting officer went to a hotel in Queens in response to a 911 emergency call that someone was banging on a hotel room door with a firearm. When the arresting officer arrived several other officers were already on the scene.  They were talking to the defendant in the hallway.  The arresting officer entered the hotel room and learned from the room’s occupant, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend, that the defendant was known to carry a gun.  The arresting officer then asked the defendant for permission to search his car.  He gave permission, gave the officer his keys, and told the officer which car belonged to him.  The officer found a gun in a shoebox in the trunk of the defendant’s car.

The defendant was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the gun and statements that the defendant made to the police.  The court denied the motion. The defendant was eventually convicted. He appealed on the grounds that the evidence of the gun should have been suppressed because the officer had no reason to suspect criminal activity.  The defendant also argued that the search was involuntary because of the presence of so many police officers and because the arresting officer did not inform the defendant that he had the right to refuse permission to search his car.

In the case of People v. Sloley, the Appellate Court considered the question as to whether the jury properly concluded that a defendant constructively possessed a firearm.  Constructive possession is a legal doctrine which allows prosecutors to bring criminal charges and potentially obtain convictions for possessory offenses in cases where the contraband was not actually found physically on the defendant.

In 2016, the defendant was pulled over by law enforcement for speeding. When he officer returned to his car to write the speeding ticket, the defendant then fled.  At one point during the chase, the defendant drove behind a building and the police lost sight of him.  He then reappeared and crashed. The police searched the area behind the building where the defendant had driven during the chase and found a handgun with the help of a canine. As a result, the defendant was charged with a variety of crimes and eventually convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, unlawful fleeing from a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving.  Because he was a second violent felony offender, the defendant was sentenced to 14 years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. The defendant appealed the conviction.

The basis of the defendant’s appeal of the firearms charge was that the prosecution did not establish that he had possession of the gun. For a possession charge the law requires that the defendant must have exercised “dominion or control over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found.” People v McCoy, 169 AD3d 1260, 1262 [2019].  In this case no one witnessed the defendant with possession of the gun and no one witnessed the defendant discard the gun.  A deputy sheriff testified that the defendant fled in his vehicle behind the building where the gun was found.  He further testified that the handgun was relatively clean and not weathered, indicating that it had been placed in the area recently.  Furthermore, the defendant’s DNA was found on the gun as well as a hat that was found in the area where the gun was found.

In People v. McCoy, the defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The convictions were based on the defendant being found to have constructively possessed a gun. Constructive possession of a firearm occurs when a defendant was not found in actual physical possession of the firearm, but was found to have had control over the area where the firearm was found.  After being sentenced to 12 years in prison, the defendant appealed his convictions.

The defendant’s arrest stems from an incident during which the defendant’s live-in girlfriend observed the defendant hammering a step in the attic of these in which they lived.  The next day, when the defendant was out of the house, she pulled up the step and found a plastic bag containing several guns. After showing her sister, who also lived in the house, the girlfriend called the police.  The police arrived at the house and removed the guns.  However, no fingerprints or DNA were found on the gun.  In addition to the defendant, the girlfriend, the girlfriend’s sister, the downstairs neighbors also had access to the attic.  Nonetheless, the defendant was arrested and charged with several charges of criminal possession of a weapon.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence.  Because several other people had access to the attic and because his DNA was not found on the guns, the defendant argued that there was not sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding that he exercised dominion and control over the area in which the guns were found.  Thus, the defendant concluded, the jury should not have convicted him of criminal possession of a weapon. Even though on appeal the court found that the defendant did not raise this particular argument in his motion to dismiss, the court still reviewed this issue in the context of evaluating whether all elements of the charged crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the defendant’s motion to suppress both physical evidence and statements. The People are appealing. There is an appeal from the same order that granted the People’s motion to reargue and on re-argument adhered to the original decision, dismissed the appeal from the prior order.

Case Background

Continue reading

The defendant has been charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and disorderly conduct. A Mapp-Huntley hearing has been held in this case. The testimony that was offered during the hearing was quite different and the court does not find either testimony to be wholly credible. At the end of the hearing each party requested more time to submit post hearing memoranda of law and they both have.

Case Facts

Continue reading

The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the County Court of Tompkins County. The judgment found the defendant guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Case Background

Continue reading