From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hilaire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued February 7, 2000

March 17, 2000

Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), dated May 27, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendant's application which was to dismiss count three of Nassau County Indictment No. 722/99, charging him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, on the ground that the People failed to define "operability".

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Bruce E. Whitney and Margaret E. Mainusch of counsel), for appellant.

Douglas H. Krieger, Great Neck, N.Y. (Todd W. Krieger of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the application is denied, and count three of the indictment is reinstated.

Although the statutory definitions of "firearm" (Penal Law § 265.00 Penal[3]) and "loaded firearm" (Penal Law § 265.00 Penal[15]) do not mention operability, it is well settled that the firearm must be operable to support a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon (see, People v. Longshore, 86 N.Y.2d 851, 852; People v. Grillo, 15 A.D.2d 502, affd 11 N.Y.2d 841; People v. Ansare, 96 A.D.2d 96). There is, however, no statutory definition of the word operable.

A Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law. It is sufficient that the Grand Jury be provided with enough information to enable it to intelligently decide whether a crime has been committed and whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime (see,People v. Calbud, 49 N.Y.2d 389, 394-395; see also, CPL 190.65 Crim. Proc.[1]). The prosecutor's failure to define "operable" did not render the Grand Jury instruction so incomplete and misleading as to impair the integrity of the Grand Jury (see,CPL 210.35 Crim. Proc.[5]; People v. Calbud, supra, at 396).

O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, LUCIANO, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hilaire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Hilaire

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., Appellant, v. WILLIAM HILAIRE, Respondent. (Ind. No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 17, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 382

Citing Cases

People v. Reyes

See People v. Hilaire, 270 A.D.2d 359 (2nd Dept. 2000). As courts have routinely found, "a Grand Jury need…

Vigil v. Rivera

The firearm need not be loaded, but it must be operable. See People v. Hilaire, 705 N.Y.S.2d 382,…