People v. Briggs
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BERGAN; DESMOND |
| Citation | 19 N.Y.2d 37,224 N.E.2d 93,277 N.Y.S.2d 662 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1966 |
| Parties | , 224 N.E.2d 93 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v. Albert BRIGGS, Respondent, and Alden James Briggs, Respondent-Appellant. |
Page 662
v.
Albert BRIGGS, Respondent, and Alden James Briggs,
Respondent-Appellant.
Page 663
[224 N.E.2d 94] [19 N.Y.2d 38] Paul H. McCabe, Dist. Atty. (Patricia Hassett, Elmira, of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Page 664
[19 N.Y.2d 39] Edward B. Hoffman, Elmira, for respondent and respondent-appellant.
[19 N.Y.2d 40] BERGAN, Judge.
On September 13, 1963 a Justice of the Peace of the Town of Ashland in Chemung County issued three warrants for the arrest of appellant Alden James Briggs. One was for assault in the third degree; one for leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident in violation of section 600 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, Consol.Laws, c. 71; and one for reckless driving in violation of section 1190 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Both motor vehicle charges were misdemeanors.
Each warrant was in the usual form and stated it was based on information on oath laid before the Justice; and each was addressed 'To any Peace Officer in the County of Chemung'.
When a State Trooper attempted to execute the warrants he was met by defendant Alden James Briggs with armed resistance and a threat to kill the trooper which amounted to assault in the second degree, if it be assumed the warrants were 'lawful process or mandate of any court or officer' (Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 242, subd. 5). The father of Briggs, Albert Briggs, was present during some of this occurrence.
The jury found both defendants guilty of assault in the second degree under that subdivision. Defendant Alden James Briggs was also found guilty of assault in the second degree under subdivision 4 of [224 N.E.2d 95] section 242 of the Penal Law which dealts [19 N.Y.2d 41] with a willful assault with the use of a weapon likely to produce grievous bodily harm; and of violation of subdivision 2 of section 1897 of the Penal Law, as it formerly read, which related to a person who 'has or carries concealed upon his person any firearm which is loaded with ammunition'.
The Appellate Division reversed on the law and as to both defendants dismissed the relevant count of the indictment charging the violation of subdivision 5 of section 242; as to defendant Alden James Briggs it also dismissed that count of the indictment charging violation of subdivision 2 of section 1897 and reversed on the law and the facts the charge of violating subdivision 4 of section 242. As to this last charge it ordered a new trial.
The People appeal from the order of reversal and argue the judgment entered at County Court should be reinstated. Defendant-appellant Alden James Briggs argues on his cross appeal that the direction for a new trial as to the assault under subdivision 4 of section 242 should be reversed and that that charge should be dismissed.
The determination of the Appellate Division that the defendant-appellant is entitled to a favorable reading of the statutory ambivalence
Page 665
resulting from the disjunctive language of former subdivision 2 of section 1897 of the Penal Law is right. This felony provision, covering a person 'who has' or 'carries concealed upon his person' a loaded firearm is, as the Appellate Division observed, designed in major purpose to relate to concealment and not, as the statute could be read literally to mean, mere possession.The direction for a new trial on the subdivision 4, section 242, assault is also well founded, since that conviction rested on an erroneous charge to the jury. But on the appeal of defendant Alden James Briggs, seeking a dismissal of this count of the indictment, the Appellate Division correctly held that a case would have been established under proper instructions to the jury and that a case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allah
...arrest and to escape; they argue that the validity of arrests should be tested in the courts, not in the streets. See People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93 (1967). But there is no contention here that defendant resisted his arrest by force. Indeed, if he had, the q......
-
State v. Medina, No. 53239
...331, 223 N.E.2d 308, 310; Morrill v. Hamel, 337 Mass. 83, 148 N.E.2d 283, 285--286; State v. Weed, 21 N.H. 262; People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93, 96 and citations; Meador v. State, 44 Tex.Crim. 468, 72 S.W. 186; See also State v. Foster, 10 Iowa 435; 67 C.J.S.......
-
Ali v. City of N.Y.,
...were pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging false arrest (see People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93 ; Saunsen v. State, 81 A.D.2d 252, 440 N.Y.S.2d 281 ; Nastasi v. State of New York, 275 App.Div. 524, 90 N.Y.S......
-
State v. Kyles
...to promote order and safety of persons, and to deter a detainee from prolonging his sentence should he be convicted. People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 42, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93; People ex rel. Haines v. Hunt, 229 App.Div. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 105. See comments, 79 Harv. L.Rev. 847 and 60......
-
People v. Allah
...arrest and to escape; they argue that the validity of arrests should be tested in the courts, not in the streets. See People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93 (1967). But there is no contention here that defendant resisted his arrest by force. Indeed, if he had, the q......
-
State v. Medina, No. 53239
...331, 223 N.E.2d 308, 310; Morrill v. Hamel, 337 Mass. 83, 148 N.E.2d 283, 285--286; State v. Weed, 21 N.H. 262; People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93, 96 and citations; Meador v. State, 44 Tex.Crim. 468, 72 S.W. 186; See also State v. Foster, 10 Iowa 435; 67 C.J.S.......
-
Ali v. City of N.Y.,
...were pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging false arrest (see People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93 ; Saunsen v. State, 81 A.D.2d 252, 440 N.Y.S.2d 281 ; Nastasi v. State of New York, 275 App.Div. 524, 90 N.Y.S......
-
State v. Kyles
...to promote order and safety of persons, and to deter a detainee from prolonging his sentence should he be convicted. People v. Briggs, 19 N.Y.2d 37, 42, 277 N.Y.S.2d 662, 224 N.E.2d 93; People ex rel. Haines v. Hunt, 229 App.Div. 419, 242 N.Y.S. 105. See comments, 79 Harv. L.Rev. 847 and 60......