Articles Posted in Gun Possession

A Queens Gun Crime Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered July 15, 1999, as amended December 2, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, on November 30, 1981, the victim was shot and killed after he confronted a thief in the vicinity of his car. The witness an admitted car thief, testified at the trial that he drove the defendant to the scene, so the defendant could go to a marijuana store referred to as “Star Wars.” He saw the victim’s car up the block, and decided to steal its radio. The victim interrupted him, and a struggle ensued. The victim reached for his ankle, to pull a gun out of his ankle holster. The defendant, whom he testified was not a car thief and not a participant in his attempt to steal the car radio, approached with a gun. At that point, he fled, and heard gunshots. The victim shot the defendant in the foot, and the defendant shot the victim in the face. The victim died from his injuries. The bullet that killed the victim came from either a.38 caliber or nine-millimeter automatic weapon.

A Queens Criminal Possession of Weapon Lawyer said that, five years later, in 1986, the defendant allegedly described his participation in the crime to his childhood friend and long-time criminal associate. He became a government informant after he was sentenced to 50 years imprisonment for an unrelated federal conviction. According to Blake, the defendant claimed that he was stealing the victim’s car in order to drive to Long Island to commit a burglary. When the victim approached, the defendant walked away. The victim followed the defendant, firing gunshots. The defendant returned the fire. These sharply divergent versions of the crime were presented to the jury at the trial. The witness version of the events was supported by three other witnesses who testified that the man who shot the victim was standing outside of and away from the victim’s car. None of these witnesses were able to identify the defendant as the man who shot the victim.

Continue reading

In this Criminal case, this suppression motion places in question the propriety of a lineup identification procedure that involves a suspect with a distinctive facial deformity: a glass eye. This motion also challenges the propriety of conducting a lineup in the absence of counsel, prior to the start of adversarial judicial proceedings, when the suspect’s counsel in an unrelated case has requested an adjournment of the lineup to the next day.

The Grand Jury of Queens County by two separate indictments charges the defendant with Robbery in the First Degree and with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree. Defendant moves to suppress evidence of all identification testimony connected to these two indictments which could potentially be offered against him at trial. The court conducted a joint Wade hearing to make findings of fact essential to a determination of that motion.

Defendant, claiming to be aggrieved by the improper and suggestive identification procedure utilized, and having a reasonable belief that the identifications thus obtained will be used against him at trial, seeks an order suppressing all such identification testimony. In particular, he contends that the lineup identifications utilized in both proceedings should be suppressed because they were the “fruit” of an illegal seizure of him. In addition, he contends that because of his uniquely distinguishing facial appearance, the same lineup shown to both complainants, was impermissibly suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification. Finally, he argues that the lineup identification testimony must be suppressed since his counsel in another pending case was not given a reasonable opportunity to attend the lineup shown to both complainants.

Continue reading

This is an Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his guilty plea, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion, to suppress physical evidence and an incriminating statement.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that in On May 1981, a police officer received a radio run of a “burglary in progress possible man with a gun” Upon reaching that address in his marked patrol car, he observed defendant in the driveway, gesturing with his hands and arguing with a man on the stoop about 10 feet away. According to the officer, the defendant appeared a little “restricted” and “self-conscious in his motioning”. The officer stepped between the two men and asked them to quiet down. Defendant brushed into the officer, and the officer pushed him back.

Thereupon, the officer patted the defendant down, because he was allegedly concerned with his physical safety. In his direct testimony, the officer testified that during the pat down, he felt the shape of a gun, but on cross-examination he testified that he only felt the shape of a holster. He then unzippered defendant’s jacket, and saw an empty shoulder holster. He removed the holster, placed the defendant against the wall under the guard of another police officer and proceeded to search the area.

Continue reading

In this Criminal case, the defendant was arrested in September 1978 and charged in one accusatory instrument, a felony complaint, with two crimes, i. e., Violation of Sections 265.02 (a felony) and 240.50 (a misdemeanor).

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that a preliminary hearing was held by this Court in November 1978. The People offered the testimony of an officer and a forensic report prepared by the New York City Police Department attesting to the operability of the weapon.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that the defendant was standing on 107th Avenue and New York Boulevard in Queens County at about 6:30 A.M. on September 16, 1978, when he flagged down a police patrol car. A distance away from the defendant were a group of five males. The defendant informed the police officers that he was an “undercover man” in the District Attorney’s office and that the group of males had just robbed him and taken his gun. At the time of this conversation, the defendant was holding a black leather holster in his hand. The police arrested the five males at the scene and recovered a gun on the sidewalk from the area in which they were standing. The defendant identified the gun as his; it was a twin barrelled Derringer with two live rounds in its chambers.

Continue reading

A Queens Criminal Gun Crime Lawyer said that, the defendant is charged, inter alia, with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and robbery in the third degree. Among the issues presented to this Court during the combined Wade/ Mapp hearing, were defendant’s standing to challenge the search warrant and the propriety of post-arrest stationhouse identification by the undercover police officer. Former counsel, in addition to moving to suppress the identification, has also moved to suppress physical evidence, but failed to specifically request controversion of the search warrant. This Court permitted substitute counsel to seek relief, albeit late, and directed a hearing.

The People called three. As will be more fully explained later, after both parties had rested, but prior to the rendering of a decision, it was discovered that the Detective had aided in defendant’s booking procedure by fingerprinting him. Upon defendant’s application, the Court re-opened the hearing to receive testimony concerning this additional viewing of defendant by the detective and what influence, if any, it had on his in-court identification.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, the Court finds the testimony of the People’s witnesses credible and not marred by any serious inconsistencies. The Court further finds that on November 1, 1990, while acting as an undercover police officer, Detective was introduced to defendant in apartment 6B, at 41-13 10th Street, by a female,. He observed defendant, who was introduced to him as “B,” for four to five minutes, during which time, defendant removed his jacket, revealing a .38 caliber gun in his waistband. The detective again met defendant on November 5, 1990, initially, in apartment 6B, and then in the rear of the project, at 41-14 10th Street, where defendant agreed to sell him 1/8 of an ounce of cocaine. He requested the money first but, when he refused, defendant became angry, went into the building and, when he returned, he threw a packet, containing cocaine, at him. When he took $20 from his wallet, defendant attempted to grab the entire wallet, taking $60.00 in currency and telling him to leave or he would be “a dead man.” This incident lasted approximately 15 minutes.

A Queens Gun Crime Lawyer said that, defendant was indicted for the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. He has moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury that if defendant possessed the weapon in his home or place of business, the gun crime would be only that of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant is one of five incorporators and a director and manager of a not-for-profit corporation formed to sponsor domino games and hold domino competitions on the lower east side of Manhattan. He was arrested, while inside his club, in possession of a loaded pistol. He claims that his position as manager and director of the corporation entitles him to invoke the “place of business” exception provided in Penal Law § 265.02(4) as follows: “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when (4) He possesses any loaded firearm. Such possession shall not, except as provided in subdivision one constitutes a violation of this section if such possession takes place in such person’s home or place of business.” The question of whether a not-for-profit corporation can be considered a “business” and whether it is the business of the manager or director so as to diminish his criminal liability are issues of first impression, certainly in New York and perhaps, nationwide.

The issue in this case is whether a social club a type of business exempted under the statute.

A Queens Gun Criminal Lawyer said that, where an accomplice to a robbery acts solely as the getaway driver and participates in neither the threat of force, its use, nor the taking of property, and is not in the immediate vicinity of the robbery or so positioned as to be capable of rendering immediate assistance to the robber, he is not “another person actually present” within the meaning of the aggravating accomplice factor of robbery, second degree.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant appeals from the affirmance of his conviction, after a jury trial, of robbery, second degree, arising from the holdup of a bank. His chief contention is that the trial court should have granted his dismissal motion, made at the close of the People’s case, upon the ground that there was insufficient proof, as a matter of law, to show that he committed the robbery while “aided by another person actually present”. A divided Appellate Division affirmed, holding, in pertinent part, that a getaway driver “shown to be parked approximately 15 feet from the bank at the time of the robbery” could be considered “actually present” at the robbery, inasmuch as the history of the Penal Law “suggests an elimination” of the distinction between actual and “constructive” presence. For reasons which follow, we agree with the view of the dissenter at the Appellate Division that both the legislative history and the plain meaning of the phrase “actually present” rule out the interpretation that it could include a person who was only constructively present at the crime scene.

The issue in this criminal case is whether aid to a robber by a person who, unseen by and unknown to the victims, is waiting outside in an automobile is a circumstance which the Legislature intended should raise what would otherwise be robbery in the third degree to the crime of aggravated robbery in the second degree.

Continue reading

The issue on this appeal concerns the validity under the Fourth Amendment of a warrantless search of the defendant’s handbag and the seizure of a loaded revolver. After a hearing, the defendant’s motion to suppress the weapon was denied. Thereupon, she entered a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of attempted possession of a weapon and the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the conviction. The court holds on that the motion to suppress was properly denied and, accordingly affirmed the order of the Appellate Term.

While seated in an automobile stopped at an intersection in Queens, the defendant woman was accosted by one man. The man, with whom the defendant woman had been living, entered the vehicle on the passenger side, pushed the defendant’s younger brother aside and grabbed her by the wrist. Brandishing a knife at her throat, he asked where his girlfriend found the car. The defendant woman managed to free herself from his grasp and ran from the vehicle to a nearby police car. She reported that her boyfriend had been harassing her for several days and had just menaced her with a knife. The police then returned to the criminal defendant’s automobile and arrested the man. He told the arresting officer that the defendant was his wife and that she was sick. On their way to the police station, the man told the arresting officer that the defendant had a gun in her possession.

The defendant woman preceded the arresting officer to the police station to file a complaint against her boyfriend. At the police station, the arresting officer confronted her and asked for her handbag, which she surrendered to him. The arresting officer then searched the handbag and found a loaded .22 caliber revolver. Upon showing the revolver to the defendant, she admitted not having a permit for it. Thereupon, she was arrested and charged with possession of a dangerous weapon. It is conceded that when the handbag was searched and the weapon seized, the defendant was not under arrest and the officer did not have a search warrant. Nor is it contended that the defendant consented to the search.

Continue reading

A police officer and a sergeant received two radio reports about a gunpoint robbery involving three black men, two of whom had bicycles. According to the first radio report, the victim, a black man dressed in all white, was waiting for them on the corner of Mott and Central Avenues in Queens County. The second radio report related that a gun was involved in the robbery.

Upon arriving at that location, the police officer observed the defendant, a black male, dressed in white and carrying a white jacket. The police officer exited the car, approached the defendant, asked him if he was okay, and in which direction the perpetrators fled, and asked him to enter the police car to help them canvass the area. Instead of answering, the defendant fled down the block. The police officer, thinking that the defendant was a perpetrator, chased him in his car, and saw him throw a jacket to the ground. He blocked the defendant’s path with his car, wrestled him to the ground, and handcuffed him. The police officer recovered the jacket and felt a heavy object therein which was determined to be a loaded.32 caliber revolver. Upon further search, 20 bags of marihuana were discovered in the defendant’s right jacket pocket. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree.

The defendant sought to suppress the gun and marijuana, and, after a Mapp hearing, the court denied the defendant’s motion. He was convicted of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The defendant contends that the hearing court should have suppressed the gun and marijuana because the police did not have reasonable suspicion to chase him and the property was abandoned as a result of their unlawful pursuit.

Continue reading

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, these are motions by defendants, made initially at the close of the People’s case and renewed before submission to the jury, inter alia, to dismiss the first two counts of the indictment for Kidnapping in the First Degree. Although the criminal defendants were acquitted of these charges and the lesser included counts of Kidnapping in the Second Degree, the importance of the issue in relation to the improper conduct by the District Attorney in attempting to foreclose application of the merger doctrine warrants consideration of the motion on the merits.

In the morning hours of September 22, 1992, at about 8:20 a.m., the victims left their home on 112th Street and 68th Drive, in Forest Hills, a quiet, residential street, preparing to go to the subway at Queens Boulevard. One was on his way to work in downtown Manhattan, the other to school at New York University. As the two left their home and crossed the street, they were accosted by five Asian males, with guns and knives, who forced them back into the house.

A Queens Gun Criminal Lawyer said that, once inside, the victim was directed to open the front door, at which point two of the five who had stopped him on the street, entered. He and his mother, were taken to the living room, where they were forced to lay on the floor, his hands bound with a dog’s leash and both covered with a blanket or cover, guarded by three of the intruders, one with a knife and one with a gun, while the other victim was taken by the other two to the basement. They told him to cooperate with us, otherwise we are going to kill all of you.” After he opened the safe, on finding no money, only jewelry, defendant told him, “You play game with me? Want money! Money! If you play games with me I’m going to kill all of you.”

Continue reading