People v. Galindo, 22 N.Y.3d 716 (2014)

Possession of a weapon creates a permissive statutory presumption of intent to use it unlawfully, which the jury may accept or reject based on the totality of the evidence.

Summary

Oliverio Galindo was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon after shooting his cousin. The prosecution relied on Penal Law § 265.15(4), which states that possession of a weapon is presumptive evidence of intent to use it unlawfully. Galindo argued that the evidence was insufficient because he claimed the shooting was accidental. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutory presumption allowed the jury to infer unlawful intent from the possession of the loaded firearm, and the jury was entitled to weigh all the competing inferences in deciding whether to accept or reject the presumption, even if the defendant presented evidence suggesting the shooting was accidental.

Facts

Oliverio Galindo shot his cousin, Augustine Castaneda, in the leg. Both worked at Broome Street Bar. Galindo accompanied Castaneda to the hospital. Galindo initially told his manager, Luis Flores, that they were mugged, but later admitted he accidentally shot Castaneda while “showing the gun.” Galindo disposed of the gun near the hospital. While in prison, Galindo urged an unidentified woman to tell Castaneda not to testify in court.

Procedural History

Galindo was indicted on two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The trial court denied Galindo’s motions to dismiss. The jury convicted Galindo on both counts. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of intent based on the statutory presumption. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the statutory presumption of unlawful intent arising from possession of a weapon, under Penal Law § 265.15(4), is sufficient to support a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, even when the defendant claims the weapon was discharged accidentally?

Holding

Yes, because the statutory presumption allows the jury to infer unlawful intent from the possession of the weapon, and the jury is entitled to weigh all the competing inferences in deciding whether to accept or reject the presumption.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that a statutory presumption is a permissible evidentiary device that allows the jury to infer a particular fact from established facts. Penal Law § 265.15(4) creates a permissive presumption, meaning the jury is not required to accept the presumed fact (unlawful intent) but may do so. The prosecution must first prove the predicate fact (possession of the weapon) beyond a reasonable doubt. Once this is done, the presumption becomes part of the prosecution’s prima facie case. The defendant can rebut the presumption with contrary proof, but the jury ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the presumption.

The court emphasized that the People weren’t required to prove intent to use the gun unlawfully against Castaneda specifically, but rather against “another” person. The court found that Galindo’s actions after the shooting, such as disposing of the gun and lying about the incident, supported the inference of unlawful intent. The Court stated: “[T]hat is exactly what the legislature intended Penal Law § 265.15 (4) to permit a jury to do: find that a defendant intended to use a weapon unlawfully merely because he or she possessed that weapon.”

The dissent argued that Galindo’s admission of an accidental shooting negated any inference of unlawful intent, and there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding. The majority rejected this argument, noting that the jury was entitled to weigh the competing inferences and that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, supported the conviction.