People v. Tolbert
Decision Date | 21 September 1998 |
Citation | 680 N.Y.S.2d 96,253 A.D.2d 832 |
Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7881 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Moses TOLBERT, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Edlyn L. Willer of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Linda Cantoni, and Adam D. Perlmutter of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., ROSENBLATT, RITTER and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.), rendered April 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was indicted and convicted under Penal Law § 265.02(4), which provides that a person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when he or she knowingly possesses any loaded firearm, except where the possession takes place in the defendant's home or place of business. We do not agree with the defendant's contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally or factually insufficient to support the verdict.
In People v. Maniscalco, 198 A.D.2d 378, 603 N.Y.S.2d 890, this court held that a loaded firearm was not possessed by the defendant inside his home, within the meaning of Penal Law § 265.02(4), where the weapon in question had been recovered from the storage console of the defendant's car, which, at the time, was parked in the unfenced driveway of the defendant's residence. The defendant's effort to distinguish People v. Maniscalco (supra) on the basis that his driveway was fenced-in, rather than unfenced, is unpersuasive. The scope of the home exception provided for in Penal Law § 265.02(4) has "been construed narrowly by the courts" (People v. Buckmire, 237 A.D.2d 151, 655 N.Y.S.2d 9; see also, People v. Powell, 54 N.Y.2d 524, 446 N.Y.S.2d 232, 430 N.E.2d 1285 [ ]; People v. Crews, 236 A.D.2d 419, 653 N.Y.S.2d 370 [ ] ). Here, the defendant's possession of a loaded firearm occurred out-of-doors, and not in any sense inside his home.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. White
...area around the house” ( id. at 379, 603 N.Y.S.2d 890; see People v. Buckmire, 237 A.D.2d 151, 655 N.Y.S.2d 9; People v. Tolbert, 253 A.D.2d 832, 833, 680 N.Y.S.2d 96). As we explained in Maniscalco, “[i]f the purpose of having the firearm is to protect family and home, then the firearm sho......
-
People v. Williams
...was probative of whether he knowingly possessed the weapons, an element of the crime charged (see, Penal Law § 265.02; People v. Tolbert, 253 A.D.2d 832, 680 N.Y.S.2d 96, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1039, 684 N.Y.S.2d 504, 707 N.E.2d 459; People v. Marino, 212 A.D.2d 735, 623 N.Y.S.2d 252, lv. den......
-
Blue v. Prince George's Cnty.
...796 (Del.2009) (any right to carry handgun within home did not extend to defendant's property outside of home); People v. Tolbert, 253 A.D.2d 832, 680 N.Y.S.2d 96, 97 (1998) (exception for home or place of business did not cover outdoor area); Dunbar v. State, 162 Ind.App. 375, 319 N.E.2d 6......
-
Prince George's Cnty. v. Blue
...proffered narrow construction of the business establishment exception is far from aberrational. For example, in People v. Tolbert, 253 A.D.2d 832, 680 N.Y.S.2d 96 (1998), a New York court concluded that an exemption “in a person's home or place of business” from the State's ban on weapons p......