People v. Colville
20 N.Y.3d 20
NY2012Background
- Defendant Delroy Colville killed Gardner and injured Jones in a shared third-floor space; conflicting depictions of the confrontation framed trial testimony.
- Defense sought jury instructions on first- and second-degree manslaughter as lesser-included offenses; judge initially refused based on lack of reasonable view of evidence.
- During trial, defense repeatedly urged submission of lesser-included offenses; judge later discussed submitting them but required defendant’s consent.
- Defendant ultimately objected to the lesser-included offenses; verdict sheet issued only for second-degree murder and second-degree assault after defense consent was withdrawn.
- Jurors convicted Colville of murder and acquitted him of assault; appellate court affirmed, then reconsidered allocation of decisionmaking authority over lesser-included charges.
- The Court reverses, holding that the decision to seek lesser-included offenses is a strategic matter for defense counsel, not the defendant personally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides on lesser-included offenses? | People | Colville | Decision rests with defense counsel; error where court deferred to defendant |
| Was the failure to submit lesser-included offenses reversible error? | People argued trial court properly followed defendant’s wishes | Colville argued counsel should decide | Error requiring new trial; not harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
| Is CPL 300.50’s command to submit when reasonable view exists applicable here? | People | Colville | Court misapplied ultimate decision authority; need new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Petrovich, 87 NY2d 961 (1996) ( Sixth Amendment counseling rights in jury charge decisions)
- People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17 (2009) (parties’ agreement under CPL 300.50; defense consultation)
- State v Grier, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (defense-decisions on lesser-included offenses rest with counsel after defendant input)
- People v Taylor, 2 A.D.3d 1306 (2003) (trial court may consider lesser offenses with counsel without defendant input in nonjury settings)
- Wardlaw, 6 NY3d 556 (2006) (harmless error standards when counsel's right to counsel is implicated)