The evidence did not establish any of the charges requiring the presence of a dangerous instrument, as defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (13). The court found the device which appellant used to intimidate the victims to be a slingshot, rather than a "confetti popper," as appellant described it in his testimony. There is no basis to disturb this factual determination. Nonetheless, there was no evidence that the slingshot was loaded or otherwise operable. While a slingshot...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
