You are here: / / JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION...

JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, THE WEAPON WAS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF A PASSENGER IN THE CAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon convictions, determined the jury should not have been instructed on the automobile presumption of possession of a weapon. The weapon was seen in the possession of a passenger:

Both police officers who pursued the vehicle being driven by the defendant testified that the gun was seen solely in the physical possession of the other occupant of the vehicle who threw it out the rear passenger side window. This clear-cut evidence that the gun was observed exclusively in the possession of an identified occupant of the vehicle renders the automobile presumption inapplicable and it was error for the court to have charged that presumption … . The error in giving the charge was not harmless since it is impossible to determine whether the guilty verdict was based on this improper jury charge rather than the proper charges pertaining to the People’s alternative theories of constructive possession and acting in concert … . Accordingly, we must vacate the defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the sentences imposed thereon and order a new trial on those counts of the indictment. People v Drayton-Archer, 2018 NY Slip Op 01934, Second Dept 3-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY INSTRUCTIONS, AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, THE WEAPON WAS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF A PASSENGER IN THE CAR (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, THE WEAPON WAS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF A PASSENGER IN THE CAR (SECOND DEPT))/AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION (CRIMINAL LAW, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, THE WEAPON WAS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF A PASSENGER IN THE CAR (SECOND DEPT))/WEAPON, POSSESSION OF (AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION, JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, THE WEAPON WAS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF A PASSENGER IN THE CAR (SECOND DEPT))/AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION (POSSESSION OF A WEAPON,  JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, THE WEAPON WAS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF A PASSENGER IN THE CAR (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO DISCLOSE LOCAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OFFER, RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT DEFENDANT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OFFER TO MAKE SURE HIS BAIL WOULD NOT BE INCREASED; DEFENDANT WAS WORRIED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIND CARE FOR HIS THREE-YEAR-OLD SON; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS; THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AND EXPERT EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS DIVERTED WATER ONTO A PUBLIC ROAD WHICH FORMED A PATCH OF BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).
City’s Operation of a Parking Garage is a Proprietary Not Governmental Function—City Can Be Sued For Failing to Provide Adequate Safety to Patrons
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S INJURIES, ANOTHER STUDENT, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY A DOG WHICH HAD BROKEN LOOSE, RAN INTO PLAINTIFF DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT MET BY POINTING TO GAPS IN OTHER PARTY’S PROOF.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PETITIONER, THE DECEASED MOTHER’S COUSIN, IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP CASE (SECOND 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

NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR... APPLICATIONS FOR A NATURAL RESOURCES SPECIAL PERMIT AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION...