By deleting extraneous and irrelevant language, the court did not unlawfully amend the indictment. The second count of the indictment charged defendant with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, based on the theory that he possessed a loaded firearm and had previously been convicted of a crime (see Penal Law §§ 265.03[3]; 265.02[1]). In accordance with CPL 200.60, the language of the count did not refer to defendant's prior conviction; instead...
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.
