Per Curiam
Martinez appealed from a judgment convicting him of disorderly conduct by a guilty plea in satisfaction of an information charging him with criminal possession of a weapon—a gravity knife. He argued the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally insufficient as it lacked non-hearsay factual allegations of an evidentiary nature sufficient to establish how the police officer’s training qualified him to identify gravity knives. The arresting police officer stated he determined the recovered knife from Martinez was a gravity knife based on his training and handling of the weapon—his experiment revealing the blade swung upon and moved into a locked position merely through the force of gravity. The unanimous panel affirmed the conviction noting a gravity knife may be identified when, by experiment, a blade could be released from its handle, and upon release, locked into place by gravity or centrifugal force. The panel stated it was unnecessary that the information contain factual allegations tracking every detail of the definition of a gravity knife. Thus, while the officer referred only in general terms to his training with gravity knives, the panel ruled same was enough that he set forth the “observable, identifiable characteristics of the knife.”
