§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Elliot Parrilla, Appellant.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Staples v. United States

    511 U.S. 600 (1994)   Cited 1,152 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a presumption of mens rea applies to statute otherwise silent on knowledge and thus requiring defendant to have known that the gun was an automatic

  2. People v. Santi

    3 N.Y.3d 234 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 159 times
    In People v. Santi, 3 N.Y.3d 234, 243, 785 N.Y.S.2d 405, 818 N.E.2d 1146 (2004), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the long established policy that, " '[i]n implementing a statute, the courts must of necessity examine the purpose of the statute and determine the intention of the Legislature.' " citing, Willams v. Williams, 23 N.Y.2d 592, 598, 298 N.Y.S.2d 473, 246 N.E.2d 333 (1969).

  3. People v. Brannon

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3676 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 70 times
    Relying on officer's "experience" regarding how "gravity knives" are "commonly carried in a person's pocket"

  4. People v. Saunders

    85 N.Y.2d 339 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 70 times
    In People v Saunders (85 N.Y.2d 339, supra), we held that defendant could attempt the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, a strict liability offense.

  5. People v. Sans

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7529 (N.Y. 2015)   Cited 20 times
    In Sans,we held the factual allegations in an accusatory instrument were sufficient because they contained a police officer's statement "that he had ‘observed the defendant remove a knife from the defendant's pocket,... recovered said knife from the defendant,’ and ‘tested the... knife and determined that it was a gravity knife, in that it opens with centrifugal force and locks automatically in place’ " (26 N.Y.3d at 15, 19 N.Y.S.3d 468, 41 N.E.3d 333).

  6. People v. Miranda

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 5095 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 12 times
    In Miranda, the police officer noticed a knife on defendant's person, regardless of whether he knew it was a gravity knife or not.

  7. In re Grudge M

    80 A.D.3d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 13 times

    No. 2010-02361. January 11, 2011. In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Michael Grudge M. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated February 11, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 19, 2009, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts constituting unlawful possession of weapons by persons under 16 (two counts) and acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted

  8. People v. Wood

    58 A.D.3d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 15 times

    No. 4054. December 9, 2008. APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 25, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City ( Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Britta Gilmore and Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), for respondent. Before: BUCKLEY, MOSKOWITZ, RENWICK

  9. People v. MH Used Auto Parts

    22 A.D.3d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 11 times

    2003-03019. August 8, 2005. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Arthur J. Cooperman, J.), rendered March 14, 2003. The judgment convicted defendants, upon a jury verdict, of violations of Environmental Conservation Law § 17-0701 (1) (a) and § 71-1933 (4) and endangering public health, safety or the environment in violation of Environmental Conservation Law § 71-2711 (3). David Samel, New York City, for appellants. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City ( Robin A. Forshaw

  10. People v. Marrero

    69 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Marrero, 69 N.Y.2d 382, 387, 515 N.Y.S.2d 212, 507 N.E.2d 1068, the Court of Appeals noted that the mistake of law defense “was intended to be a very narrow escape valve,” and that it applies only where “an individual demonstrates an effort to learn what the law is, relies on the validity of that law and, later, it is determined that there was a mistake in the law itself ” (id. at 390, 515 N.Y.S.2d 212, 507 N.E.2d 1068).