§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

64 Cited authorities

  1. Staples v. United States

    511 U.S. 600 (1994)   Cited 1,153 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. Morissette v. United States

    342 U.S. 246 (1952)   Cited 2,272 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is a defense to a charge of "knowingly converting" federal property that one did not know that what one was doing was a conversion

  3. People v. Callahan

    80 N.Y.2d 273 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 1,145 times
    Holding that "a bargained-for waiver of the right to appeal is ineffective to the extent it impairs the defendant's ability to obtain appellate review" of unwaivable claims

  4. United States v. Freed

    401 U.S. 601 (1971)   Cited 519 times
    Holding that a violation of § 5861(d) may be established without proof that the defendant was aware of the fact that the firearm he possessed was unregistered

  5. Lambert v. California

    355 U.S. 225 (1957)   Cited 742 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant was entitled to actual notice of registration requirement where failure to register was punishable as a felony

  6. People v. Buford

    69 N.Y.2d 290 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 426 times
    Holding that the trial court's reasons for its determination following a Buford inquiry should be placed on the record

  7. People v. Johnson

    94 N.Y.2d 600 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 240 times   6 Legal Analyses

    Argued February 23, 2000 Decided April 13, 2000. Appeal in the first above-entitled action, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that court, entered November 10, 1998. Appeal in the second above-entitled action, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that court, entered November 10, 1998. Appeal in the third above-entitled action

  8. People v. Ford

    66 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 352 times
    Retaining the charge because it emphasizes the need for careful reasoning and "forecloses danger . . . that the trier of facts may leap logical gaps in the proof offered and draw unwarranted conclusion based on probabilities of low degree"

  9. 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).

  10. United States v. Balint

    258 U.S. 250 (1922)   Cited 460 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "person dealing in drugs" must "ascertain at his peril whether that which he sells comes within the inhibition of statute" and is permissibly subject to criminal penalties despite his "ignorance" of a drug's illegality