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
NYC WATER BOARD’S RATE HIKE AND BILL CREDIT WERE NOT IRRATIONAL. ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS (CT APP).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE’S CASE TO PROVE INTENT.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (H) ARE LIMITED TO THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES (CT APP).
In Deciding the Sequence of Convictions, the Original Sentence Date Controls, Not the Date of Resentencing to Cure a Post-Release-Supervision Flaw
Failure to Turn Over to the Defendant Grand Jury Minutes Use by the Judge in SORA Risk Calculation Violated Due Process
APPELLATE DIVISION WRONGLY EXTENDED COMMON INTEREST ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO MERGER NEGOTIATIONS WHEN THERE WAS NO PENDING LITIGATION.
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER DRUG FACTORY PRESUMPTION OF DRUG POSSESSION; WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT.
STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO EXCULPATE DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR DECLARATIONS AGAINST PENAL INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP).

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 © 2025 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.