In Lammy, the court dismissed the indictment reasoning that although the indictment alleged that the defendant was not authorized to possess a firearm or ammunition, no facts were presented to the grand jury to prove the element that the charged defendant did not fall within an enumerated category of persons authorized to possess a weapon.
Summary of this case from People v. BankstonNovember 8, 2010.
Crimes-Possession of Weapon — Explosive Bomb.
In Lammy, the court dismissed the indictment reasoning that although the indictment alleged that the defendant was not authorized to possess a firearm or ammunition, no facts were presented to the grand jury to prove the element that the charged defendant did not fall within an enumerated category of persons authorized to possess a weapon.
Summary of this case from People v. BankstonFull title:People v. Lammy (Keagan)
Court:Supreme Court of the State of New York. Kings County
Date published: Nov 8, 2010
The People failed to reply to Defendant's argument to dismiss AC § 10-131[e][1] for facial…