New York Court of Appeals, 1936

People v. La Pella

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 24, 1936 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>

4 N.E.2d 943; 272 N.Y. 81; 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 871 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. Williams (N.Y. 1980)
The People v. Lance Williams (N.Y. 2020)
Carey v. United States (D.C. 1977)
State v. Tyler (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986)
Logan v. United States (D.C. 1979)
People v. E.C. (New York Supreme Court 2003)
People v. Amos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
People v. Perry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Jenkins (New York Supreme Court 2000)
People v. Wesley (New York Supreme Court 1994)
Marrero v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
United States v. Kunkle (United States Court of Military Appeals 1987)
People v. Almodovar (N.Y. 1984)
Stewart v. United States (D.C. 1981)
State v. Flaherty (Me. 1979)
Hines v. United States (D.C. 1974)
People v. Ramirez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
People v. Ruiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
People v. Patterson (New York Supreme Court 1996)
People v. Owens (New York Supreme Court 1994)
People v. Cezar (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1991)
People v. Snyder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Green (New York Supreme Court 1987)
People v. Mascitti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Jose C. (New York Supreme Court 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

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 *83 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. Per see, 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.