People v. Moss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moss

205 A.D.2d 379, 613 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6316

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 16, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered July 13, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 2 Vi to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly denigrated his defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon by instructing the jury that his possession could be found lawful only if it was "fleeting” is not preserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review it, we would find that the charge, viewed as a whole (People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817), did not force the jury unduly to restrict the period of possession that could be consistent with temporary and lawful possession, and otherwise conveyed the appropriate legal standard concerning this defense (see, People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 130). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered July 13, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 2 Vi to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly denigrated his defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon by instructing the jury that his possession could be found lawful only if it was "fleeting” is not preserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review it, we would find that the charge, viewed as a whole (People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817), did not force the jury unduly to restrict the period of possession that could be consistent with temporary and lawful possession, and otherwise conveyed the appropriate legal standard concerning this defense (see, People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 130). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

People v. Moss, 205 A.D.2d 379, 613 N.Y.S.2d 385, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

205 A.D.2d 379 (People v. Moss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related