Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Jesse QQ.
Citations: 243 A.D.2d 788; 662 N.Y.S.2d 851; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9669
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 9, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made by a respondent from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County, which adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent based on a petition filed on December 7, 1995, alleging acts that would constitute third-degree assault and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The petitioner claimed the respondent intentionally injured Brian Schug with a dirk, later found hidden in his underwear. The Family Court dismissed the assault charge but found the respondent guilty of criminal possession of a weapon after fact-finding hearings, leading to a one-year custody placement with the State Division for Youth. The respondent argued his right to a speedy fact-finding hearing was violated due to delays. However, the court found he effectively waived this right at his arraignment, and the timeline did not violate his right to a speedy verdict because the Family Court Act does not apply provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law to juvenile proceedings. Despite a delay in issuing the decision, it was deemed valid and not unreasonable. The main contention revolved around whether the knife was classified as a "dirk" under Penal Law 265.01 (2). The respondent claimed the term was not defined in the law and suggested a dictionary definition, arguing it referred to a specific type of dagger. The court clarified that dictionary definitions are not definitive in statutory interpretation, especially when the term's modern understanding differs from its historical meaning. Consequently, the court concluded that Penal Law 265.01 (2) encompasses possession of instruments inherently considered weapons. A dirk is defined as a stabbing weapon featuring a blade with at least one sharpened edge that tapers to a point. The knife in question, measuring 2¾ inches in overall length with a rubber grip and an arrowhead-shaped blade, is determined to meet this definition. Its sharpened and serrated edge, combined with a handle designed for effective stabbing, suggests it is primarily intended for that use, with no apparent utilitarian purpose. Therefore, it qualifies as a dirk under the law. The Family Court correctly ruled that the respondent committed the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, as he failed to present evidence to counter the presumption of unlawful intent. The court also rejected the respondent's claim of being denied the right to deliver a summation, noting he had sufficient opportunity to do so in writing. The order is affirmed without costs, and while the respondent was also adjudicated as a person in need of supervision, that matter is not addressed in this appeal.