People v. Hilaire, 270 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Hilaire, 270 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the prosecutor's failure to define 'operable' did not render the grand jury instruction so incomplete and misleading as to impair the integrity of the grand jury. at p. 360 ✓
11 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Reyes (nysupctnewyork, 2024-09-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reyes (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
As courts have routinely found, "a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law." People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980). [*2]Specifically, in People v. Hilaire , the Second Department considered this question and held the following: "[t]he prosecutor's failure to define 'operable' did not render the Grand Jury instruction so incomplete and misleading as to impair the integrity of the Grand Jury." People v. Hilaire , 270 AD2d at 360 (2nd Dept. 2000) (citing People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reyes (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
As courts have routinely found, "a Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law." People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980). [*2]Specifically, in People v. Hilaire , the Second Department considered this question and held the following: "[t]he prosecutor's failure to define 'operable' did not render the Grand Jury instruction so incomplete and misleading as to impair the integrity of the Grand Jury." People v. Hilaire , 270 AD2d at 360 (2nd Dept. 2000) (citing People v. Calbud , 49 NY2d 1140 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hernandez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law §§ 265.02, 265.03; People v Longshore, 86 NY2d 851, 852 [1995]; People v Johnson, 46 AD3d 838, 839 [2007]; People v Hilaire, 270 AD2d 359, 359-360 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Singson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant illegally possessed an operable weapon (see Penal Law § 265.01 [1]; People v Longshore, 86 NY2d 851, 852 [1995]; People v Hilaire, 270 AD2d 359, 359-360 [2000]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bailey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
A firearm must be operable to support a conviction of criminal possession of a weapon (see People v Hilaire, 270 AD2d 359, 359-360 [2000]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Helenese
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed an operable weapon (see People v Longshore, 86 NY2d 851, 852 [1995]; People v Benjamin, 24 AD3d 565 [2005]; People v Rodriguez, 238 AD2d 447 [1997]; People v Bailey, 19 AD3d 431, 432 [2005]; see also People v Hilaire, 270 AD2d 359, 359-360 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
William Hilaire
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 13, 2000.
270 A.D.2d 359
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), dated May 27, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendant’s application which was to dismiss count three of Nassau County Indictment No. 722/99, charging him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, on the ground that the People failed to define “operability”.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the application is denied, and count three of the indictment is reinstated.

Although the statutory definitions of “firearm” (Penal Law § 265.00 [3]) and “loaded firearm” (Penal Law § 265.00 [15]) do not mention operability, it is well settled that the firearm must[*360] be operable to support a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon (see, People v Longshore, 86 NY2d 851, 852; People v Grillo, 15 AD2d 502, affd 11 NY2d 841; People v Ansare, 96 AD2d 96). There is, however, no statutory definition of the word operable.

A Grand Jury need not be instructed with the same degree of precision that is required when a petit jury is instructed on the law. It is sufficient that the Grand Jury be provided with enough information to enable it to intelligently decide whether a crime has been committed and whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime (see, People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394-395; see also, CPL 190.65 [1]). The prosecutor’s failure to define ^operable” did not render the Grand Jury instruction so incomplete and misleading as to impair the integrity of the Grand Jury (see, CPL 210.35 [5]; People v Calbud, Inc., supra, at 396). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.