People v. Pons

In People v. Pons (68 N.Y.2d 264 [1986]) the defendant was tried for murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree after bringing a loaded firearm to a fatal encounter. Justification was charged with respect to the murder and manslaughter counts but not as to the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the defendant was acquitted of all charges except for the weapons possession count. On appeal, the defendant argued that justification negated any element of intent to use unlawfully and therefore had to be presented to the jury not only with respect to his murder and manslaughter counts, but also with respect to the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. In rejecting this argument the Pons court stated: "[I]ntent to use and use of force are not the same [so that] it does not follow that because defendant was justified in the actual shooting of the weapon under the particular circumstances existing at that moment, he lacked the intent to use the weapon unlawfully during the continuum of time that he possessed it prior to the shooting." (68 N.Y.2d at 267-268.) 1 In other words, the Pons rule as stated above prevents a defendant who carries or otherwise possesses an illegal weapon from retroactively converting such illegal possession to a legal act merely because he uses it in a justified manner at a particular moment in the future. In People v Pons, the trial court instructed the jury on justification based on self-defense (Penal Law 35.15) as it relates to murder and manslaughter. The jury acquitted the defendant of murder and manslaughter, but found the defendant guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law 265.03). The Court of Appeals commented in a footnote that the defendant Pons "did not request, and the record would not support, a charge under Penal Law 35.05. Nor did defendant claim on the trial that his gun was licensed or otherwise exempt under Penal Law 265.20" (People v Pons, at 266).