Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Barton Depaul

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


December 28, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
BARTON DEPAUL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (William D. Walsh, A.J.), rendered October 18, 2010.

People v Depaul

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Released on December 28, 2012

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]) and menacing in the second degree (§ 120.14 [1]), arising from an incident in which defendant pointed a BB gun at a police officer and demanded the officer's money. According to the trial testimony of the officer, the BB gun appeared to be a real handgun and he feared for his life. On appeal, defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the BB gun was loaded or operable. That contention is unpreserved for our review because defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specifically directed at that alleged deficiency in the People's proof (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, because defendant was charged with possessing an "imitation pistol," the People were not required to prove that the BB gun was loaded or operable. The cases relied upon by defendant are distinguishable because the defendants therein were charged with possessing firearms; it is well settled, however, that a BB gun is not a firearm (see People v Wilson, 283 AD2d 339, 340, lv denied 97 NY2d 644; see generally People v Perez, 93 AD3d 1032, 1038 n 2, lv denied 19 NY3d 1000). Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20121228

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.