People v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Francis

126 A.D.2d 740, 511 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41890

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 740 (People v. Francis) 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. Francis, 126 A.D.2d 740, 511 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), rendered May 4, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of an operable .38 caliber revolver. There was expert testimony that, although the weapon’s revolving mechanism was not functioning properly, the weapon could be aligned manually and discharged, and that it had been test fired (see, People v Howard, 37 AD2d 178; People v Elfe, 37 AD2d 208). The defendant’s additional claim of error with respect to the court’s charge is unpreserved (see, People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), rendered May 4, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree and menacing, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of an operable .38 caliber revolver. There was expert testimony that, although the weapon’s revolving mechanism was not functioning properly, the weapon could be aligned manually and discharged, and that it had been test fired (see, People v Howard, 37 AD2d 178; People v Elfe, 37 AD2d 208). The defendant’s additional claim of error with respect to the court’s charge is unpreserved (see, People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 740, 511 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-francis-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack