People v. Blair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blair

115 A.D.2d 609, 496 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55032

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Blair) 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. Blair, 115 A.D.2d 609, 496 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered July 5, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court’s charge adequately conveyed the People’s burden of proving each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Francis, 99 AD2d 841; People v Lawrence, 112 AD2d 382). Furthermore, the jury ,was properly instructed that in order to convict defendant they must find that he had in his possession a firearm which had been defaced for the purpose of misrepresenting the identity of the firearm (see, Penal Law §265.02 [3]). Finally, sufficient proof was adduced to support the finding that the defacement was intended to misrepresent the firearm’s identity (see, Penal Law § 265.02 [3]). Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered July 5, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The court’s charge adequately conveyed the People’s burden of proving each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Francis, 99 AD2d 841; People v Lawrence, 112 AD2d 382). Furthermore, the jury ,was properly instructed that in order to convict defendant they must find that he had in his possession a firearm which had been defaced for the purpose of misrepresenting the identity of the firearm (see, Penal Law §265.02 [3]). Finally, sufficient proof was adduced to support the finding that the defacement was intended to misrepresent the firearm’s identity (see, Penal Law § 265.02 [3]). Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 609, 496 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blair-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack