People v. Cade

Decision Date30 May 1995
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Mark CADE, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, John M. Castellano, and Mark L. Katz, of counsel), for appellant.

Ursula Bentele, Brooklyn (Kathleen Pakenham on the brief), for respondent.



Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), dated May 21, 1992, which granted the defendant's motion to set aside a jury verdict finding him guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and thereupon dismissed the indictment.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the defendant's motion is denied, the verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The People established that the defendant constructively possessed a sawed-off shotgun based on evidence that it was found in the defendant's bedroom (see, People v. Watson, 56 N.Y.2d 632, 450 N.Y.S.2d 784, 436 N.E.2d 190) and upon the defendant's admission to the Assistant District Attorney that he possessed it during the period charged in the indictment (see, People v. Reisman, 29 N.Y.2d 278, 285, 327 N.Y.S.2d 342, 277 N.E.2d 396, cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1041, 92 S.Ct. 1315, 31 L.Ed.2d 582). That other people had access to the defendant's bedroom does not alter this conclusion (see, People v. Torres, 68 N.Y.2d 677, 505 N.Y.S.2d 595, 496 N.E.2d 684; People v. Tirado, 38 N.Y.2d 955, 384 N.Y.S.2d 151, 348 N.E.2d 608).

Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in setting aside the verdict for legal insufficiency of the trial evidence.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Morton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 25, 2010
    ...possession of a weapon in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 265.03[3]; People v. Nix, 53 A.D.3d 557, 862 N.Y.S.2d 371; People v. Cade, 215 A.D.2d 772, 627 N.Y.S.2d 70). During the plea allocution, the defendant admitted that he possessed a loaded firearm, which he knew was operable. The d......
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 30, 1995
  • People v. Cade
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 1995
    ...504 632 N.Y.S.2d 504 86 N.Y.2d 791, 656 N.E.2d 603 People v. Mark Cade Court of Appeals of New York Aug 21, 1995 Simons, J. 215 A.D.2d 772, 627 N.Y.S.2d 70 App.Div. 2, Queens Denied. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT