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
THE LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE ASSAILANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE WAS NOT AN INTRUDER AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE, THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTED (CT APP).
THERE IS NO ACTUAL INNOCENCE GROUND FOR VACATION OF A GUILTY PLEA UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 440.10 (h) (CT APP).
IN ORDER TO KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED OF HIS MAXIMUM SENTENCING EXPOSURE IN YEARS; THE “SPEEDY TRIAL” TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THE JOINDER OF A CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL IS CHARGED TO THE DEFENDANT, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT YET BEEN ARRAIGNED (CT APP).
THE RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, A POST-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDING MIGHT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LEFT OPEN BY THE TRIAL RECORD; ANY ERROR IN ADMITTING DNA EVIDENCE WHERE CONSENT, NOT IDENTITY, IS THE ISSUE IS HARMLESS (CT APP).
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.
QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; EXTENSIVE THREE-JUDGE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP). ​
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO ALLOW ADDING A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).
THE EMPLOYER’S REQUEST, AT THE HEARING, TO CROSS-EXAMINE CLAIMANT’S PHYSICIAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEVANT REGULATION IS MANDATORY (THIRD DEPT). ​

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.