People v. Birth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Birth

49 A.D.3d 290, 853 N.Y.2d 317

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 6, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 290 (People v. Birth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Birth, 49 A.D.3d 290, 853 N.Y.2d 317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The People proved the operability, within the meaning of the statute, of the gravity knife at issue (see Penal Law § 265.00 [5]; § 265.01 [1]; § 265.02 [1]). An officer who tested the knife after defendant’s arrest described the manner in which the knife operated, which conformed to the statutory definition of a gravity knife. The officer similarly demonstrated the operability of the weapon in open court. The People had no obligation to prove that the knife would also function as a gravity knife if the officer repeated the test while sitting down and using his weaker hand, as suggested by defense counsel at trial (see People v Smith, 309 AD2d 608 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 580 [2003]). Defendant’s other arguments on this issue are without merit.

The court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the crime with which defendant was charged (see People v Berrier, 223 AD2d 456 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 876 [1996]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s constitutional arguments regarding both the legal sufficiency and jury charge issues. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The People proved the operability, within the meaning of the statute, of the gravity knife at issue (see Penal Law § 265.00 [5]; § 265.01 [1]; § 265.02 [1]). An officer who tested the knife after defendant’s arrest described the manner in which the knife operated, which conformed to the statutory definition of a gravity knife. The officer similarly demonstrated the operability of the weapon in open court. The People had no obligation to prove that the knife would also function as a gravity knife if the officer repeated the test while sitting down and using his weaker hand, as suggested by defense counsel at trial (see People v Smith, 309 AD2d 608 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 580 [2003]). Defendant’s other arguments on this issue are without merit.

The court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the crime with which defendant was charged (see People v Berrier, 223 AD2d 456 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 876 [1996]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s constitutional arguments regarding both the legal sufficiency and jury charge issues. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 290, 853 N.Y.2d 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-birth-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack