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, etc., respondent, v. Jason CONNELLY, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered August 10, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) was properly denied as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. The defendant relied solely on the number of Hispanic venirepersons challenged by the prosecution to support his request for race-neutral explanations, and offered no showing of circumstances sufficient to raise an inference of a pattern of discrimination (see People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d 500, 507-508, 743 N.Y.S.2d 374, 769 N.E.2d 1266; People v. Severino, 44 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 844 N.Y.S.2d 391; People v. Thigpen, 14 A.D.3d 518, 788 N.Y.S.2d 174).
The Supreme Court properly declined to charge the jury with the inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01[1] ), since there was no “reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed such lesser offense but did not commit the greater” (CPL 300.50). Contrary to the defendant's contention, to establish criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree based on possession of a firearm, the People must establish that the firearm is operable (see People v. Longshore, 86 N.Y.2d 851, 852, 633 N.Y.S.2d 475, 657 N.E.2d 496; People v. Grillo, 15 A.D.2d 502, 222 N.Y.S.2d 630, affd. 11 N.Y.2d 841, 227 N.Y.S.2d 668, 182 N.E.2d 278; see also People v. Aguilar, 202 A.D.2d 512, 609 N.Y.S.2d 76; Matter of Shannon G., 195 A.D.2d 556, 556-557, 600 N.Y.S.2d 478; People v. Actie, 99 A.D.2d 815, 472 N.Y.S.2d 147). Thus, had the jury believed that the firearm was inoperable, it could not have convicted the defendant on the lesser charge but, rather, would have had to acquit him on both the lesser and the greater charges.
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.
Decided: August 05, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)