You are here: / / THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN...
,

THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN THIS CRIMIINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined the jury should not have been instructed on constructive possession in this criminal possession of a weapon prosecution:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in instructing the jury on constructive possession because there is no view of the evidence from which a jury could have concluded that defendant constructively possessed the handgun on the night in question—i.e., that he exercised dominion or control over the handgun by a sufficient level of control over the area where it was recovered … . We further conclude that the error is not harmless inasmuch as we cannot determine whether the jury’s general verdict was based upon defendant’s actual possession of the handgun or his constructive possession of it … . People v Ross, 2023 NY Slip Op 01381, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Here is was deemed reversible error to instruct the jury on construction possession of a weapon because there was no evidence defendant exercised control over the area where the weapon was found.

 

You might also like
TRAFFIC STOP WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A TRAFFIC VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT).
In SORA Proceeding, Child Pornography Properly Considered Under Factor 7 (“Relationship Between Offender and Victim”)
E-Mail Service to Defendant Living in Iran Deemed Valid
DEFENDANTS IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TAX RETURNS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF MOTHER’S DEATH, IF SO, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD PASSED (FOURTH DEPT).
“Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes of Action in Lead-Paint Case
PLAINTIFF STEPPED OFF A CURB AND FELL INTO A FOUR-FOOT DEEP STORM DRAIN; THE GRATE WHICH USUALLY COVERED THE DRAIN WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM; THE DEFENDANT MUNICIPALITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Jail Time Does Not Count Toward Subsequent Offense Until Previous Sentence Expired
Non-Supervising Property Owner Not Liable Under Common Law or Labor Law 200 for Injury Stemming from the Manner In Which the Work Is Done

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 PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICERS WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD THE... PLAINTIFF SUED THE TOWN ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT; TOWN LAW 65 (3) REQUIRED...