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
RESPONDENT JUVENILE WAS NOT INFORMED THE FACT FINDING HEARING IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING WOULD GO FORWARD IN HIS ABSENCE (THE PARKER WARNING); THEREFORE RESPONDENT DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND THE ADJUDICATION WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF HIS ABSENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION BASED UPON EMPLOYEES’ ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; THE PROPER THEORY IS RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).
IN RESPONSE TO A BATSON INQUIRY, THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR STRIKING THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN FACT RELATED TO ANOTHER PROSPECTIVE JUROR FOR WHOM DEFENDANT HAD EXERCISED A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
TO JUSTIFY CIVIL CONFINEMENT, THE DISEASE OR DISORDER ATTRIBUTED TO A SEX OFFENDER NEED NOT BE A SEXUAL DISORDER; SEX OFFENDER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), WHICH REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS RESIDE IN SARA-COMPLIANT HOUSING (AWAY FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS) UPON RELEASE FROM PRISON DOES NOT APPLY TO SEX OFFENDERS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S PERSON BEFORE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; HOWEVER EVIDENCE COLLECTED AFTER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.
PORTIONS OF CITY SIDEWALK ELEVATED BY TREE ROOTS AND “REPAIRED” WITH COLD PATCH; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY ARE LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (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...