Opinion
01-02-2015
William G. Pixley, Pittsford, for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Geoffrey Kaeuper of Counsel), for Respondent.
William G. Pixley, Pittsford, for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Geoffrey Kaeuper of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[1][b] ). We reject defendant's contention that County Court's instruction on the statutory presumption of unlawful intent (see § 265.15 [4] ), combined with the trial testimony concerning her intent to use the weapon unlawfully against a specific victim, rendered that charge duplicitous. The count charging defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree alleged a single offense, and “there was no danger of a nonunanimous verdict with respect to” the element of intent (People v. Watson, 115 A.D.3d 687, 689, 981 N.Y.S.2d 753, lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1069, 994 N.Y.S.2d 328, 18 N.E.3d 1149 ; see People v. Lora [Jesus], 176 A.D.2d 273, 273, 574 N.Y.S.2d 297, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 829, 580 N.Y.S.2d 209, 588 N.E.2d 107 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, and SCONIERS, JJ., concur.