Summary
In People v. Wilt, 105 A.D.2d 1089, 1090, 482 N.Y.S.2d 629, this Court concluded that there was no “ ‘rational connection’ ” between the discovery of the gun in the trunk of the vehicle in which the defendant was riding and his presumed possession of the gun.
Summary of this case from People v. CampbellOpinion
November 7, 1984
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Celli, J.
Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O'Donnell, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant, tried jointly with Richard Castrechino (see People v Castrechino, 105 A.D.2d 1089) was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The evidence against defendant consisted of proof that police found a loaded gun in the trunk of the automobile driven by defendant in which Castrechino was a passenger. The statutory presumption of possession set forth in subdivision 3 of section 265.15 Penal of the Penal Law provides: "The presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public omnibus, of any firearm [or] defaced firearm * * * is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon * * * is found". The statutory presumption establishes a prima facie case against defendant, which presumption he may rebut by offering evidence ( People v Lemmons, 40 N.Y.2d 505, 510). Although generally the presumption will remain in the case for the jury to weigh even if contrary proof is offered, it may be nullified if the contrary evidence is strong enough to make the presumption incredible ( People v Lemmons, supra, p. 510). Here, defendant testified in his own defense and called several witnesses who corroborated his story that he had only been in the automobile for five or six minutes to look for his girlfriend. He stated that he had never looked in the trunk of the car which had a missing trunk lock and did not know that a gun was inside the trunk. The overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence renders the statutory presumption of Penal Law unconstitutional as applied to this defendant. In our view, there is no "rational connection" between the discovery of the gun in the trunk and defendant's presumed possession (cf. Leary v United States, 395 U.S. 6, 33; Tot v United States, 319 U.S. 463). Absent the statutory presumption, the evidence is legally insufficient to convict defendant of knowingly possessing a loaded firearm as a matter of law.