People v. Humphrey, 79 N.Y.2d 709 (1992)

A firearm is considered operable for the purposes of criminal possession of a weapon even if it malfunctions during an attempted use, provided that the firearm is later proven capable of discharging ammunition without material alteration after the malfunction.

Summary

The defendant, Humphrey, was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon after pointing a gun at another person, Ron Humphrey. The gun clicked twice but did not fire due to a jammed bullet. After seizure, the gun was examined, the jammed bullet removed by an officer, and the gun was later test-fired successfully. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution sufficiently proved the firearm’s operability at the time of possession, even though it malfunctioned during the incident. The court reasoned that the gun’s later operability, without material alteration, was sufficient evidence.

Facts

On December 12, 1982, the defendant pointed a gun at Ron Humphrey, who reacted defensively. The gun clicked twice but did not fire. The gun was seized and found to be loaded but jammed. An officer removed the jammed bullet, noting a dent indicating the firing pin had struck it. A ballistics expert later test-fired the gun and ammunition, and both worked. The defendant was subsequently acquitted of attempted murder and criminal use of a firearm but convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Procedural History

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the firearm’s operability at the time of possession. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove that the firearm was operable at the time the defendant possessed it, even though it malfunctioned when the defendant attempted to fire it.

Holding

Yes, because the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the gun and ammunition were operable at the time of the incident. The gun’s later operability when test fired after the jammed bullet was removed, combined with the evidence suggesting the gun could readily have discharged, sufficiently proved its operability.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the prosecution, supported the jury’s finding of operability. The court emphasized that the jury could reasonably conclude that removing the jammed bullet did not materially alter the gun. The court distinguished the case from People v. Shaffer, noting that in Shaffer, the ammunition was not test-fired. Here, the subsequent successful test-firing of the gun and ammunition provided sufficient evidence of operability at the time of the incident. The court stated, “the fact that the gun malfunctioned, standing alone, does not defeat the overwhelming inference that immediately prior to the pulling of the trigger, the gun was capable of discharging the ammunition, particularly in view of the uncontradicted evidence that when subsequently test-fired, the gun and the bullets were found to be operable.” The court thus affirmed that proof of later operability, absent material alteration, sufficiently establishes operability at the time of possession for the purposes of the statute.