Gun Possession

Published on: May 1, 2012

Court Reviews Search and Seisure Proceedures in Possible Murder Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The village police received a 911 call from a teenager asking for assistance because he thought his mother had died. A police officer was dispatched to the home of the teenager and he arrived at 9:30am. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the teen-aged boy let the police officer in and brought him to his mother’s bedroom where he found the mother lying in a pool of her own blood. After the police officer was sure that the mother had no pulse, the police officer called for the detectives of the police department. The police officer also called the dead woman’s husband at his dental clinic.

Other police officers arrived at 10am. The police detectives arrived at 10.40 am and the medical examiners came at 11:25am. The husband of the dead woman, the dentist came home at 12 noon.

When the dentist arrived the police detective asked him questions. He was asked if he had any guns in the house and the dentist said no. He said he had not fired a gun since 1954 when he was in the armed forces.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Court Determines Admissibility of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A patrolman was on patrol one evening when he was ordered to investigate a complaint regarding abandoned automobiles in the vicinity of 24 Max Avenue, Hicksville, New York. A New York Criminal Lawyer the building located at that address contains two factory establishments and an apartment on the first floor.

In the course of the investigation, the patrolman knocked on the front door of the apartment at about 9:15 that evening. In response he heard the voice of a very young child whom he later ascertained to be two years of age. He asked through the door if child’s father or mother is at home. The child answered in the negative. He then again asked whether anyone else was home and again the child replied in the negative. The door was not opened. It was locked. He peered through the curtained window and saw the lights on and a television set in operation. At this point, the police officer made a radio call for assistance from the Juvenile Aid Bureau of the Nassau County Police Department. Following the call, a detective of the Juvenile Aid Bureau along with a Sergeant and another Patrolman, operating a police ambulance, convened at the premises. They all approached the apartment. The Patrolman knocked on the door, and on this occasion, a different young voice answered. The patrolman requested the child to open the door. The door was opened and he was met by a five year old female. Thereafter, the police officer questioned the little girl as to the whereabouts of her parents. She told him that there was no one else in the apartment besides the two children. The officer ascertained at that time that the young girl was five years old, and that the child who first answered his knocking was a little boy two years of age.

In the course of being questioned the young girl admired the service revolver belonging to the patrolman and said, “defendant-man has a gun like that”. The girl then turned around and walked over to a cabinet and said, “See, here it is”. She had picked a loaded .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver out of the top drawer and the police officers immediately took the gun from her before anything happened. The police asked her, “Has defendant-man any more guns?”, and she replied, “Yes, he has a lot of guns and he also has pot and speed”. She then went back to the same drawer and picked out a plastic bag which contained marijuana and also gave it to the police officers.

Published on: April 30, 2012

Defendant Brings Motion to Supress Idenification Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal of a man from his judgment in the Supreme Court convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degree, upon a jury verdict. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appeal brings up for review the denial of the accused man’s motion which was to suppress identification testimony and upon an order the court that reversed the above mentioned decision.

Contrary to the accused man’s contention, the pretrial lineup identification was not improperly suggestive. The photographs taken of the lineup reflect that the slight differences in skin tone between the man and the fillers were not so apparent as to orient the viewer toward the man as the offender of the crimes charged. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that based on records, the skin tone is only one of the factors to be considered in deciding reasonable similarity and differences in skin tone alone will not render a lineup improperly suggestive. A the court does not find that the presence of a small tattoo on the side of the man’s face rendered the lineup improperly suggestive.

The court found that improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation deprived the man of a fair trial. The prosecutor improperly vouched for a witness and implied that the witness faced retribution from the man when he stated that the witness testified not knowing what the consequence would be for herself and her family. A said that based on records, a prosecutor may not strengthen the credibility of a witness by making himself or herself unsworn witness and supporting his case by his own veracity and position.

Published on: April 28, 2012

Statements Made by Defendant Used Against Him at Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused was arrested while driving his car a short distance from the scene of a possession of a weapon crime. After his arrest, the accused made certain statements to police which were used against him at trial. According to the statements, the accused had previously made the acquaintance of an individual and had agreed with the individual to drive two of the individual’s friends to a location where one of them was seeking a job. According to the statements, the accused drove the individual and his two friends to a house in Merrick. There the accused dropped off the individual’s friends. The accused consistently denied any knowledge that the individual and his friends intended to commit a robbery at the location to which he had driven them. However, the accused did state to the police that he had observed that there was a criminal possession of a weapon by one of the men during the drive from Queens to Merrick.

The accused man’s own testimony at trial, as well as the testimony of the individual and his friend largely confirmed the content of the accused man’s post-arrest statement to the police. The accused testified that he had met the individual’s friends on July 18, and had driven them to a friend’s house the following evening. The following morning, he agreed to drive the three men to the house in Merrick. He dropped the three men off at that location, but then the individual returned to the car, informing him that his friends were about to rob the people in the house. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused testified, consistent with his post-arrest statements that he had not known that a robbery had been planned. However, his testimony was inconsistent with his prior statements to the extent that he testified that he had never told a police officer that he had seen a gun in the car during the trip from Queens.

The individual testified that he had requested that the accused drive him and his two friends to Merrick. According to the individual, no one said anything to the accused concerning the true reason for the trip. The individual testified that after he and the other two men had gotten out of the car upon their arrival in Merrick, he noticed one of his friends take out a gun, at which point he returned to the accused man’s car, informed him of the robbery which was about to occur, and urged the accused to drive away. The individual insisted that the accused knew nothing about the robbery prior to it being committed.

Published on: April 23, 2012

Defedant Contends Police Did Not have Probable Cause for Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Two uniformed police officers were checking out an illegally parked car near the corner of 39th Street and 9th Avenue at 3am on June 15, 2005. One of them happened to look up and saw a man running. He was coming from the vicinity of 8th Avenue. When the police officers asked him why he was running, the man wouldn’t say. They stopped him and frisked him but found that he was not in possession of a weapon. When the police officers asked him what was going on, he said he had just been robbed. At that time, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the two police officers heard gunshots from the same area where the man had just come from. They reported over the police radio the gunshots fired.

At around the same time, two other police officers in an unmarked police car were in the vicinity of 8th Avenue when they also heard the gunshots fired. They then saw the white SUV they noticed on the street a while back. The SUV fired its engine and started speeding away. The two police officers followed the speeding SUV. They were tailing it when the SUV came to an abrupt halt because they came across the two other uniformed police officers.

The two uniformed police officers were standing on the street with their guns drawn when they heard the screeching of the tires of SUV and the unmarked police car that appeared to be chasing the SUV. A New York Criminal Lawyer said both the SUV and the unmarked police car were coming from the general direction of the area where the gunshots were fired.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Decides Gun Crime Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The police searched the garage belonging to a man against whom a search warrant had already issued. The police found an automatic pistol which was loaded with eight cartridges. The automatic pistol was wrapped in a paper bag which was hidden in the folds of a sheet of tarpaulin which was owned by the man and which was placed in the garage by the same man.

In the same garage the police found a carbine among the tools and utensils owned by the man. It was not hidden as the loaded automatic pistol was. While searching the attic of the man’s house, the police also found a box containing cartridges similar to those loaded into the automatic pistol. Along with this box of cartridges, they also found an empty box of the same brand and make of cartridges.

All the relatives of the man, when questioned denied ownership of the gun and denied knowledge that it was hidden in the garage. Even the man himself denied the gun crime and knowledge of the gun hidden in his garage among his personal items belonging to him.

Published on: April 18, 2012

Defendant Argues that Revocation of Gun License is Unfair

by Stephen Bilkis

A man had applied for and was granted target pistol licenses for his two pistols since May 1967. In 2001 the License Division of the NYPD converted all target pistol licensed into Premises Residence Licenses. Accordingly, man’s the pistol license renewal applications were converted into renewal applications for Premises Residence Licenses. On September 10, 2004, the NYPD License Division approved his renewal application and issued him a new Premises Residence License.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 2006, the NYPD received a notification that the gun licensee was arrested for a domestic dispute. The NYPD confiscated the licensed firearms. When they came to his apartment, they found two rifles in his residence which were not licensed. These were confiscated by the NYPD as well.

The police were called to the home shared by the gun licensee and his wife. The wife testified that she and her husband had a verbal dispute and as a result of their argument, the gun licensee assaulted his wife by punching her and kicking her. The wife also retaliated and assaulted her husband by punching and kicking him as well.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Defendant Objects to Prior Convictions Being Brought in as Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Gun Crime Lawyer said a man was charged with robbery for having forcibly stolen money from the complainant’s store while wielding a knife. The complainant testified that the man had taken money from both the cash register and a cigar box in which lottery receipts were kept, and had warned her not to tell anyone about the robbery. Testifying in his own behalf, the man admitted that he had stolen money from the cigar box, but denied that he had possessed a knife, stolen money from the register, or threatened the complainant.

Prior to trial, the man made a motion to limit the prosecution’s cross-examination regarding his prior criminal convictions. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he had three prior convictions of felonies and misdemeanor. The most recent involved a gun crime with robbery of a delicatessen. Initially, the trial court ruled that if he takes the stand, the Jury would be prohibited from cross-examining him regarding his two earliest convictions, but the Jury would be permitted, without inquiring into the underlying facts of the case, to confront the man with the fact that he had been convicted of robbery. Following jury selection, the court revised its ruling at the man’s request to limit the Jury’s inquiry to whether the man had previously been convicted of a felony without specifying that it was robbery.

When the man testified, the prosecutor abided fully with the court’s ruling and the man admitted of having previously been convicted of a felony. During the Court examination, however, the defense counsel asked the man, over the Jury’s objection, whether he had pleaded guilty to the prior felony charge. A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said the man responded that he did plead because he was guilty. Immediately thereafter, on the Jury’s application and over the defense counsel’s objection, the court modified its ruling to permit the prosecutor to examine the man about the facts underlying the prior robbery conviction.

Published on: April 13, 2012

Defendant Sold Drugs to Undercover Officer

by Stephen Bilkis

A man appealed from a decision of the Supreme Court from convicting him drug possession and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree upon a jury decision, and imposing a sentence. A revised decision of the same court revoked a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon finding that he had violated a condition and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

The accused man evidently sold a packet of cocaine to an undercover police officer. The undercover officer called the description of the seller to his backup team however the police were unable to locate the seller at that time. After three days, while observing the area from a rooftop, the undercover officer saw the man walking down the street. He called his backup team, and the man was arrested in a nearby restaurant. The undercover officer subsequently identified the man as the person of cocaine possession and sold him the controlled substance. No drugs or prerecorded buy money were found on the accused man. At the trial, the man’s wife testified that he was with her in their apartment the entire evening of the date of the transaction.

On appeal, the accused man contends that the questioning of his alibi witness and comments on summation deprived him of a fair proceeding. During the questioning of the man’s wife, the prosecutor deliberately bring forth that the man was involved in a drug treatment program at the time of his arrest. The court erred in permitting such questioning because the testimony would have no other purpose than to show a tendency to commit violation of the criminal law being charged. The information was not relevant to the elements of the drug crime charged or to the man’s alibi defense.

Published on: February 16, 2012

Court Decides Drug Possession and Sale Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On May 24, 2011, a Kings County, New York man was arrested during the execution of a search warrant. According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, the search warrant was the result of an undercover investigation that covered more than four months. On 13 separate occasions, undercover police officer’s observed the man in possession of heroin and in possession of cocaine. They also observed him sell heroin and cocaine on these occasions.

The case was referred to the Brooklyn Treatment Court on August 16, 2011. The man had requested to be considered for Judicial Diversion of his case. Judicial Diversion is a program that was designed for certain felony offenders spelled out in Criminal Procedure Law Article 216. It grants the judges authority to decide which nonviolent offenders have committed their offenses as a result of substance abuse or dependence. They are then given the opportunity to avoid a jail sentence by contracting with the state to complete a court monitored treatment program.

Criminal Procedure Law Article 216 defines the eligible offenders for Judicial Diversion as those “charged with certain Class B, C, D, and E felony drug offenses, or those charged with specified nonviolent offenses listed in CPL § 410.91(4), so long as they do not have a disqualifying condition listed in CPL § 216.00(1).” The District Attorney then decides who among these offenders is eligible. There are to be no violent or Class A felony offenders allowed into the program. The statute does not speak to the inclusion of misdemeanor crimes which are lessor included offenses to the felony charges that an offender has committed.