People v. Motzer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Motzer

115 A.D.2d 222, 495 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56628

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 222 (People v. Motzer) 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. Motzer, 115 A.D.2d 222, 495 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence supports the court’s finding of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree with respect to the .32 caliber revolver. The court’s finding of not guilty with respect to possession of the .22 caliber revolver does not render the verdict inconsistent. [223]*223Acquittal of the latter crime does not negate an essential element of the former (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1). We need not here decide whether we should apply a different rule of inconsistency to a nonjury verdict (see, People v Tucker, supra, pp 6-7, n 3). In no sense is the verdict inconsistent. Based upon the evidence, the Trial Judge logically could have determined that the defendant had constructive possession of one revolver but not of the other. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Houston, J.—criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence supports the court’s finding of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree with respect to the .32 caliber revolver. The court’s finding of not guilty with respect to possession of the .22 caliber revolver does not render the verdict inconsistent. [223]*223Acquittal of the latter crime does not negate an essential element of the former (see, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1). We need not here decide whether we should apply a different rule of inconsistency to a nonjury verdict (see, People v Tucker, supra, pp 6-7, n 3). In no sense is the verdict inconsistent. Based upon the evidence, the Trial Judge logically could have determined that the defendant had constructive possession of one revolver but not of the other. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Houston, J.—criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 222, 495 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-motzer-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack