From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. La Pella

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1936
272 N.Y. 81 (N.Y. 1936)

Summary

In La Pella the time span was about 20 minutes, whereas in Quintana it was perhaps eight hours or more. The facts to which Williams testified, which encompassed the brief period involved in making three trips to carry the apartment's contents between locations only a few city houses apart, were well within this range.

Summary of this case from People v. Williams

Opinion

Argued October 14, 1936

Decided November 24, 1936

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

George J. Todaro for appellant.

William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney ( Ambrose J. Delehanty of counsel), for respondent.


Defendant has been convicted of the crime of having and carrying a firearm concealed upon his person, without a license therefor, after having been convicted of a crime. (Penal Law, § 1897, subd. 5.) He offered evidence that, having found the weapon in a public toilet room, he had put it in his pocket, intending to deliver it to the police, after keeping an appointment with his wife at a nearby street corner. Without request or suggestion, the weapon was there surrendered by the defendant to a detective. This, the defendant says, was twenty minutes after he had found it.

The sole question here presented is that raised by the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury, "that if this defendant found this pistol as claimed by him, and if he thereafter took this gun for the purpose of delivering it to an officer or to a police station, that he was performing a civic duty, and that such possession was not the possession intended by Section 1897." We think this ruling was error. The "possession" forbidden by the statute "should not be construed to mean a possession * * * which might result temporarily and incidentally from the performance of some lawful act" ( People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 402), particularly when, as is here claimed, the act was designed to meet the social policy of the law.

The judgments should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ., concur; CROUCH, J., taking no part.

Judgments reversed, etc.


Summaries of

People v. La Pella

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1936
272 N.Y. 81 (N.Y. 1936)

In La Pella the time span was about 20 minutes, whereas in Quintana it was perhaps eight hours or more. The facts to which Williams testified, which encompassed the brief period involved in making three trips to carry the apartment's contents between locations only a few city houses apart, were well within this range.

Summary of this case from People v. Williams

In People v. La Pella, 272 N.Y. 81, 4 N.E.2d 943 (1936) the defendant was held entitled to an instruction that temporary possession incidental to a lawful purpose was not proscribed by a statute prohibiting possession of a concealed weapon by a person previously convicted of a crime.

Summary of this case from State v. Flaherty

In People v. La Pella (272 N.Y. 81) it was held that there may be an excuse for possession of a prohibited weapon, such as finding it and carrying it for the purpose of delivering it to the police.

Summary of this case from People v. Furey

In People v. La Pella (272 N.Y. 81), a case involving possession of a pistol, the court said: "The `possession' forbidden by the statute `should not be construed to mean a possession * * * which might result temporarily and incidentally from the performance of some lawful act' (People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397, 402), particularly when, as is here claimed, the act was designed to meet the social policy of the law."

Summary of this case from People v. Quintana

In People v. La Pella (272 N.Y. 81), the defendant found a weapon in a public room and put it into his pocket, intending to deliver it to the police after keeping an appointment with his wife at a nearby street corner.

Summary of this case from People v. Stone
Case details for

People v. La Pella

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PETER LA PELLA…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 24, 1936

Citations

272 N.Y. 81 (N.Y. 1936)
4 N.E.2d 943

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

However, "when no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding of the tendered defense, the court…

People v. EC

In Persce, the Court mentioned two exceptions: (1) "legal ownership of a weapon in a collection of curious…