You are here: / / THE MURDER TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 20; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION...
,

THE MURDER TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 20; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON NOVEMBER 21 AND INDICTED ON THAT CHARGE ALONE; SUBSEQUENTLY, BASED ON FORENSIC EVIDENCE (BALLISTIC AND DNA), DEFENDANT WAS SEPARATELY INDICTED FOR MURDER COMMITTED WITH THE SAME WEAPON ON NOVEMBER 20; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY INDICTED SEPARATELY BECAUSE THE TWO OFFENSES WERE NOT PART OF “THE SAME CRIMINAL TRANSACTION” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant was properly separately indicted for (1) possession of a weapon and (2) using that weapon to commit murder. Criminal Procedure Law 40.40(2) prohibits separate indictments for joinable offenses. The majority concluded that the possession-of-a-weapon was not part of the “same criminal transaction” as the murder:

Defendant contends that County Court properly dismissed the murder indictment under CPL 40.40 (2) and, as relevant here, argues that the charges were part of the same criminal transaction because there was no break in possession between her use of the weapon in the murder on November 20, 2021 and her possession of the weapon the next day, November 21. The prosecution responds that the passage of time between defendant’s completion of the homicide on November 20 and her subsequent apprehension on November 21 while in possession of the firearm used to commit the offense separates the criminal acts into different criminal incidents, allowing separate prosecution of the possession and the murder charges. The prosecution has the better argument. We conclude that the Appellate Division properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and reinstated the murder indictment. People v Harris, 2026 NY Slip Op 03260, CtApp 5-26-26

Practice Point: Here criminal possession of a weapon on November 21 and murder using that same weapon on November 20 were deemed offenses which were not part of the same criminal transaction. Therefore the two offenses were properly indicted separately. The separate indictments did not violate the prohibition of separate indictments for joinable offenses in CPL 40.40(2).

 

You might also like
Failure to Read Jury Notes to Counsel Before Calling in the Jury Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—The Error, Therefore, Must Be Preserved by Objection
THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT ON THE GROUND THE POLICE VIOLATED THE “KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE” RULE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS “NOVEL” (CT APP).
THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP).
SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS OFFERED BY CHARTER SCHOOLS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PURE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION’S CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS NOT REQUIRED (CT APP).
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON A CRIMINAL CONVICTION EXTENDS TO AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION BY AN OUT-OF-STATE NON-EMPLOYER.
PEOPLE NEED NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNEW THE KNIFE DEFENDANT POSSESSED MET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE.
LANDLORD, BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WHICH REQUIRED THE TENANT TO DO RENOVATION WORK, IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR THEREFORE HAD A VALID MECHANIC’S LIEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDLORD (CT APP).
Experts’ Failure to Address Proximate Cause Precluded Summary Judgment
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF IS A NEW JERSEY RESIDENT WORKING FOR A NONDOMICILIARY EMPLOYER,... THE STENOGRAPHER DELIBERATELY FAILED TO TRANSCRIBE PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL TESTIMONY,...