Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. WENDELL L. FUQUA, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1] ). We reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to grant his request to instruct the jury that his mere presence in the area where the gun was possessed by another person or his mere knowledge that another person possessed the gun were insufficient to establish his guilt. The court's definition of the term “possess” was taken from the Criminal Jury Instructions, and that definition adequately conveyed the inference that defendant could not be convicted based on his mere presence in the area where another person possessed the gun or his mere knowledge that another person possessed the gun (see People v. Johnson, 190 A.D.2d 753, 754, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 972; People v. Wooley, 187 A.D.2d 623, 623, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 849; see also People v. Henderson, 307 A.D.2d 746, 746–747, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 595). We presume that the jurors had “ ‘sufficient intelligence’ “ to make that inference, and defendant was “not ‘entitled to select the phraseology’ that makes [that] inference[ ] all the more explicit” (People v. Samuels, 99 N.Y.2d 20, 25–26). We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in refusing to grant his renewed request for such a jury instruction, following its receipt of a note from the jury regarding the definition of the term “possession.” The court meaningfully responded to the jury's request by rereading its original instruction with respect to the definition of that term (see People v. Shanks, 207 A.D.2d 710, 710, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1015), and the jury “gave no indication after the original charge was repeated that [its] concern had not been satisfied” (People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 303, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; see People v. Davis, 118 A.D.2d 206, 212, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 768).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 09–01465
Decided: November 08, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)