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
Work on Billboard Was “Alteration” within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and “Construction” within Meaning of Labor Law 241 (6)
STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).
THE COUNTY MUST REIMBURSE THE TOWNS FOR UNPAID PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION CHARGES (CT APP).
PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS ARE TREATED LIKE THE STATE FOR DETERMINING THEIR CAPACITY TO CHALLENGE A STATUTE, APPLICABLE DUE PROCESS STANDARD IS WHETHER THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED AS A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO REMEDY AN INJUSTICE, AT ISSUE IS A STATUTE ALLOWING LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY TO BE FILED IN A 9-11 CLEANUP PERSONAL INJURY ACTION (CT APP).
THE FOIL REQUIREMENT THAT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS BE “REASONABLY DESCRIBED” IS DISTINCT FROM THE ABILITY TO RETRIEVE THE DOCUMENTS WITH “REASONABLE EFFORT;” THE TWO STANDARDS SHOULD NOT BE CONFLATED; HERE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S PROFESSED INABILTY TO RETRIEVE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WERE “REASONABLY DESCRIBED;” MATTER REMANDED (CT APP).
Pretrial Motion to Dismiss the Accusatory Instrument, Arguing the Facts Alleged Did Not Constitute the Crime Charged, Preserved the Legal-Sufficiency Issue for Appeal, Despite the Absence of a Motion for a Trial Order of Dismissal on the Same Ground
Unearned Hourly Fees and Contingency Fees Are Not the Property of a Dissolved Law Partnership
County Could Not Shift Obligation to Pay Property Tax Refunds to Taxing Districts

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,...