New York Law Review

Tag: Dangerous Knife

  • In re Antwaine T., 22 N.Y.3d 512 (2013): Facial Sufficiency of Petition Charging Juvenile with Possession of a Dangerous Knife

    In re Antwaine T., 22 N.Y.3d 512 (2013)

    A petition charging a juvenile with unlawful possession of a dangerous knife is facially sufficient if it alleges facts supporting the inference that the knife was possessed as a weapon rather than a utensil, considering the circumstances of its possession.

    Summary

    A juvenile delinquency petition was filed against Antwaine T., charging him with criminal possession of a weapon and unlawful possession of weapons by a person under 16 after he was found in possession of a machete with a 14-inch blade late at night. Antwaine initially denied the petition but later admitted to unlawful possession of a weapon. After violating the terms of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD), he was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the petition facially insufficient. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the description of the machete and the circumstances of its possession were sufficient to support the charge that Antwaine was carrying a weapon.

    Facts

    On November 23, 2010, police arrested Antwaine T., a 15-year-old, in Brooklyn. The arresting officer recovered a machete with a 14-inch blade from Antwaine’s possession. The incident occurred at approximately 11:23 p.m. Antwaine’s mother confirmed his age and provided a copy of his birth certificate to the officer.

    Procedural History

    A petition was filed in Family Court charging Antwaine with criminal possession of a weapon and unlawful possession of weapons. Antwaine initially denied the charges but later admitted to the charge of unlawful possession of weapons. The Family Court granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). After Antwaine violated the terms of his ACD, the case was restored to the calendar. The Family Court revoked the ACD, adjudicated Antwaine a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the petition facially insufficient. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a juvenile delinquency petition charging a violation of Penal Law § 265.05 (unlawful possession of weapons by persons under sixteen) is facially sufficient when it alleges that the respondent possessed a machete with a 14-inch blade at night in Brooklyn.

    Holding

    Yes, because the arresting officer’s description of the machete, with its 14-inch blade, being carried by the respondent late at night on a street in Brooklyn, adequately states circumstances of possession that support the charge that the defendant was carrying a weapon.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on Family Court Act § 311.1(3)(h), which requires that a petition contain a factual statement asserting facts supporting every element of the crime charged. The Court also cited Family Court Act § 311.2(3), stating that the petition is sufficient if the nonhearsay allegations establish every element of each crime charged. Referring to Penal Law § 265.05, the Court acknowledged that the statute does not define “dangerous knife.” The court then referenced Matter of Jamie D., 59 NY2d 589 (1983), which held that a “dangerous knife” is a knife that may be characterized as a weapon. The Court in Jamie D. further explained that knives designed primarily as utilitarian utensils may be considered weapons based on the circumstances of possession. Applying these principles, the Court of Appeals reasoned that while a machete can have utilitarian purposes, it was unreasonable to infer that Antwaine was using the machete for cutting plants under the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the officer’s description of the machete, including its size, combined with the time and location of the incident, adequately supported the charge that Antwaine was carrying a weapon. The court stated, “[T]he arresting officer’s description of the “machete,” with its 14-inch blade, being carried by respondent late at night on a street in Brooklyn, adequately states “circumstances of. . . possession” (Jamie D. at 593) that support the charge that defendant was carrying a weapon.”

  • In re Carlos V., 55 N.Y.2d 585 (1982): Possession of Utilitarian Knife as a Dangerous Weapon

    In re Carlos V., 55 N.Y.2d 585 (1982)

    A knife, not inherently dangerous, can be considered a “dangerous knife” under Penal Law § 265.05 if the circumstances of its possession, including the possessor’s behavior, demonstrate that the possessor considered it a weapon.

    Summary

    Carlos V., a minor, was found in possession of a kitchen knife while allegedly attempting to commit a robbery. The Family Court adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent for violating Penal Law § 265.05, which prohibits persons under 16 from possessing a “dangerous knife.” The Appellate Division reversed, holding the knife was not inherently dangerous. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a knife, even if typically used as a utensil, can be deemed a dangerous weapon based on the circumstances of possession and the possessor’s conduct, which indicated he considered it a weapon. The court emphasized the importance of context in determining whether an object is a weapon.

    Facts

    Respondent, under 16, and another youth were observed attempting to rob a youngster with guns. When a passerby intervened, the youths threatened to “blow his head off.” Police apprehended the youths after a chase. Respondent resisted when an officer tried to remove his hand from his belt line. A kitchen knife with an approximately five-inch blade was found protruding from his belt.

    Procedural History

    A petition was filed in Bronx County Family Court, alleging violations of Penal Law § 265.01(2) (criminal possession of a weapon with intent to use it unlawfully) and § 265.05 (unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16). The Family Court dismissed the § 265.01(2) charge but sustained the § 265.05 charge, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s order and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Family Court’s disposition.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a kitchen knife, not inherently a weapon, can be considered a “dangerous knife” under Penal Law § 265.05 based on the circumstances of its possession and the possessor’s behavior.

    Holding

    Yes, because the circumstances of possession, including the respondent’s behavior and reluctance to relinquish the knife when confronted by police, indicated that he considered it a weapon, thus bringing it within the scope of Penal Law § 265.05.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that while the statute doesn’t define “dangerous knife,” the term should be interpreted in the context of the statute, which concerns weapons. The court distinguished between knives inherently designed as weapons (e.g., bayonets, stilettos) and those primarily designed as utilitarian utensils. For the latter, the determination of whether it is a “dangerous knife” depends on the circumstances of possession. The court referenced Penal Law § 10.00(13), defining “dangerous instrument” as any instrument which, under the circumstances it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious injury, stating it embodies a sound criminological principle. The court distinguished this case from Matter of Ricci S., 34 NY2d 775 (1974), where possession of a hunting knife during a narcotics search was not deemed unlawful because there was no indication it was being used as a weapon. Here, the respondent’s involvement in an attempted robbery and his resistance when confronted by police demonstrated he considered the knife a weapon. The court stated, “respondent had demonstrated his disposition to violence and criminal activity and then, when accosted, by his behavior and reluctance to give up the knife effectively manifested that he himself considered it a weapon of significance to the police and not an innocent utilitarian utensil.”