You are here: / / SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO DEFENDANT’S HOME AND SHE SHOT...
,

SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO OPEN THE DOOR TO DEFENDANT’S HOME AND SHE SHOT THROUGH THE DOOR, KILLING HER BOYFRIEND; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “LAWFUL TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STRONG DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial on the possession of a weapon charge, over a strong dissent, ,determined defendant was entitled to a “lawful temporary possession of a weapon” jury instruction. Someone was trying to open the door to defendant’s home and she shot through the door, killing her boyfriend. She was acquitted of homicide:

Defendant testified that she had inadvertently discovered the firearm while attempting to protect herself in the face of an imminent threat, i.e., a person forcibly trying to enter her home. Specifically, she thought that her estranged husband, who had previously attacked her in her home, was the person attempting to forcibly enter the home. She discovered the firearm while trying to find in her kitchen an object to defend herself, and she did not know beforehand that the firearm was there. When the person at the door continued trying to enter the home, defendant shot through the door to scare him away. Thereafter, defendant saw that she had shot the victim—her boyfriend. She then dropped the firearm, and started to provide first aid. The firearm was not recovered after the shooting, and defendant did not know what happened to it. …

… [W]e conclude that there is a reasonable view of the evidence … that she came into possession of the firearm in a legally excusable manner that was not ” ‘utterly at odds with [any] claim of innocent possession’ ” … . …

We also conclude … there is a reasonable view thereof that defendant’s use of the firearm did not require a finding that she had used it in a dangerous manner … . People v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04827, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

You might also like
DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL.
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE ROAD WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL USE OF THE ROAD; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE FAILURE “INFECTED” THE GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE SUPPRESSION COULD HAVE LED TO DISMISSAL OF SOME OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO ARBITRATION OF A GRIEVANCE REQUIRED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WERE COMPLIED WITH IS A QUESTION FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (FOURTH DEPT).
TOWN COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THE EUTHANASIA OF RESPONDENT’S DOG AFTER THE DOG ATTACKED AND REPEATEDLY BIT A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD; THE DISSENTER ARGUED PETITIONERS DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THEIR CHILD SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
Mode of Proceedings Error Re: Jury Note Required Reversal, Molineux Rulings Flawed
THE SEARCH OF DEFEFNDANT’S VEHICLE BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS NOT COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO AN ILLEGAL FRISK BY A POLICE OFFICER WHICH REVEALED THE CAR KEYS; COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “DANGER INVITES RESCUE” DOCTRINE APPLIED; PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY HURT HER BACK TRYING TO PREVENT A PATIENT FROM FALLING WHEN DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE IMPROPERLY USED A HOYER LIFT TO TRANSFER THE PATIENT FROM A WHEEL CHAIR TO A BED (FOURTH 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

THE NONDOMICILIARY DID NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK; NEW YORK DID... THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DEFENDANT WHICH DID NOT OWN THE AREA...