You are here: / / PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET...

PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the People do not need to prove a defendant charged with possession of a gravity knife was aware the knife opened and locked by flicking the wrist downward. Here defendant claimed he always opened the knife with two hands, used it only to cut sheetrock and tile and did not know it was a gravity knife:

We … conclude that Penal Law § 265.01 (1) does not require the People to prove that defendants knew that the knife in their possession met the statutory definition of a gravity knife. The plain language of that subdivision demonstrates that the Legislature intended to impose strict liability to the extent that defendants need only be aware of their physical possession of the knife (see Penal Law §§ 15.00 [2]; 15.10). While knowing possession of the knife is required (see Penal Law § 15.15 [2]), we conclude it is not necessary that defendants know that the knife meets the technical definition of a gravity knife under Penal Law § 265.00 (5). People v Parrilla, 2016 NY Slip Op 03417, CtApp 5-3-16

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAVITY KNIFE, PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE)/GRAVITY KNIFE (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY, PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THE BB GUN DISPLAYED DURING THE ROBBERY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY; THEREFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE “DISPLAYED-WEAPON-COULD-NOT-CAUSE-DEATH-OR-SERIOUS-INJURY” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT DEFENDANT DISPLAYED A BB GUN, SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHARGE (CT APP).
IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION (1) PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED A LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE REQUIRING PROOF OF MALICE; (2) SOME STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OTHER STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY PRE-LITIGATION AND FAIR REPORT PRIVILEGES; (3) AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE APPLY ONLY TO CONDUCT AFTER THE AMENDMENTS WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).
residency requirements for school district employees are enforceable.
Successive Tenants of Same Apartment Limited to a Single Policy Limit Re: Recovery for Lead Paint Exposure
​ THE DENIAL OFTHE NON-RESIDENT’S APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK CITY IS SUBJECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITIONS IN THE NEW YORK CITY AND NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS UNENFORCEABLE; “DIFFICULTIES” BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND TWO ATTORNEYS ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT HIM DID NOT AMOUNT TO DEFENDANT’S FORFEITURE OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AS THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD RULED (CT APP).
Damage to Building Caused By Excavation Next Door Constituted “Vandalism”
No Need to Request Missing Witness Charge to Argue Absence of Witness to Jury

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DENIAL OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WITHOUT A HEARING WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DIS... PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.