§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Antonio Aragon, Appellant.

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Casey

    95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 1,346 times
    Finding nonhearsay allegations including the complainant's supporting deposition, which stated that the order had been issued, was in effect, and that she had personally observed the defendant engage in conduct that violated the order could help to cure an alleged defect in the instrument premised on the failure to provide the underlying court order

  2. People v. Kalin

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2446 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 687 times
    In Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225, 878 N.Y.S.2d 653, 906 N.E.2d 381, the Court of Appeals examined an information which had charged the defendant with, among other things, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree for the possession of nine plastic bags of heroin.

  3. People v. Dumay

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4038 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 503 times
    Finding factual allegations in information sufficient to support obstructing governmental administration charge, where information alleged that defendant slammed the trunk of police car and stood behind car preventing it from moving

  4. People v. Dreyden

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5243 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 404 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the gravity knife law "distinguishes gravity knives from certain folding knives that cannot readily be opened by gravity or centrifugal force"

  5. People v. Konieczny

    2 N.Y.3d 569 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 484 times

    87. Submitted May 6, 2004. Decided June 10, 2004. APPEAL, by permission of the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), entered March 13, 2003. The County Court affirmed a judgment of the City Court of North Tonawanda, Niagara County (William R. Lewis, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree. Michael J. Violante, Public Defender, Lockport ( Joseph G. Frazier of counsel)

  6. People v. Hansen

    95 N.Y.2d 227 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 444 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, by pleading guilty, the defendant had forfeited his right to challenge the prosecutor's submission of hearsay evidence to the grand jury

  7. People v. Jackson

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2252 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 242 times
    Interpreting a substantially similar definition of "public place" and concluding that a person is in a public place when located on a highway even if he or she is inside a personal automobile

  8. People v. Kasse

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2103 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 76 times

    2014-03-27 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Harouna KASSE, Appellant. Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Michael J. McLaughlin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Sheryl Feldman of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Michael J. McLaughlin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Sheryl Feldman of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM: The order of the

  9. People v. Suber

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 3573 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 69 times
    In People v. Suber, 19 NY3d 247, 252, 946 N.Y.S.2d 552 (2012), the Court of Appeals held that “CPL Sec. 100.40(1) does not mandate corroboration of an admission in an information.

  10. People v. Santana

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5155 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 62 times
    In People v. Santana, 7 N.Y.3d 234, 237, 818 N.Y.S.2d 842, 851 N.E.2d 1193 [2006], the Court of Appeals emphasized that the determination of whether an exclusion is “a proviso that the accused may raise in defense of the charge rather than an exception that must be pleaded by the People in the accusatory instrument” is ultimately a matter of legislative intent, and an exemption found “entirely within a Penal Law provision” identifies it as an exception “generally” but not exclusively (id.).

  11. Section 39-17-1301 - Part definitions

    Tenn. Code § 39-17-1301   Cited 34 times
    In T.C.A. § 39-17-1301, the definition statute for statutes dealing with weapons and explosives, "Explosive Weapon" has a substantially similar definition to that for destructive device in the now repealed T.C.A. § 39-3-711.

  12. Section 571.010 - Definitions

    Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.010   Cited 21 times

    As used in this chapter, the following terms shall mean: (1)"Antique, curio or relic firearm", any firearm so defined by the National Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Title 26, Section 5845, and the United States Treasury/Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, 27 CFR Section 178.11: (a)"Antique firearm" is any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, said ammunition not being manufactured any longer;

  13. Section 16920 - "Metal knuckles" defined

    Cal. Pen. Code § 16920   Cited 9 times

    As used in this part, "metal knuckles" means any device or instrument made wholly or partially of metal that is worn for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and that either protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow. The metal contained in the device may help support the hand or fist, provide a shield to protect it, or consist of projections or studs which would contact the individual