The People v. Alexis Ocasio
28 N.Y.3d 178
| NY | 2016Background
- Defendant charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree for carrying a “rubber-gripped, metal, extendable baton (billy club)” in his rear pants pocket.
- Police officer affidavit described the object as a tubular metal, rubber-gripped, extendable device “designed primarily as a weapon” for striking or choking.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient, arguing the statutory term “billy” refers only to short, fixed-length wooden clubs.
- Criminal Court granted the motion; Appellate Term affirmed; the People obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals majority reversed, holding the description was sufficient to charge possession of a “billy” under Penal Law § 265.01(1); a dissent would have affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a modern metal, extendable baton qualifies as a “billy” under Penal Law § 265.01(1) | “Billy” includes batons; dictionaries and statutory context show baton and billy are synonymous | “Billy” historically means a short, solid wooden club of fixed length and should be construed narrowly | A “billy” reasonably encompasses a cylindrical/rounded rigid club or baton with a handle grip, including metal and extendable batons; accusatory instrument sufficient |
| Whether material or collapsibility excludes an object from being a “billy” | Material or extendability do not change the object’s essential character as a striking weapon | Material and extendability are distinct physical traits that place modern batons outside the historical meaning of billy | Material and extendability do not remove an instrument from the ordinary meaning of “billy” when its appearance/function matches that definition |
| Whether the accusatory instrument provided adequate factual allegations to meet CPL sufficiency requirements | Allegations (description + officer’s training-based statement) gave reasonable cause and non-hearsay facts to identify the weapon | Description did not allege the essential, historical characteristics of a billy and thus failed to give fair notice | The facts alleged were non-hearsay and adequate to give notice and prevent double jeopardy; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether judicial expansion of “billy” raises vagueness or due-process concerns | Interpretation follows ordinary meaning and legislative context; no preserved constitutional challenge | Narrow construction required to avoid retroactive judicial expansion and fair-warning problems | Court did not decide a preserved vagueness challenge; on these facts, ordinary-meaning construction was applied and no constitutional ruling was made |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kalin, 12 N.Y.3d 225 (guide on facial sufficiency of accusatory instruments)
- People v. Smalls, 26 N.Y.3d 1064 (non-hearsay allegations must establish elements in misdemeanor informations)
- People v. Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354 (notice requirements for informations)
- People v. Persce, 204 N.Y. 397 (historic doctrinal discussion of the “well-understood character” of enumerated weapons)
- People v. Versaggi, 83 N.Y.2d 123 (use ordinary meaning/dictionaries to construe undefined statutory terms)
- People v. Green, 68 N.Y.2d 151 (rule of lenity and choosing between plausible constructions)
- People v. Garson, 6 N.Y.3d 604 (avoid absurd statutory applications)
- People v. Cruz, 48 N.Y.2d 419 (due process and vagueness principles regarding notice)
- People v. McPherson, 220 N.Y. 123 (distinguishing related striking instruments)