73 N.Y.S.3d 497
Court for the Trial of Impeach...2018Background
- Defendant Sanchez had been previously stabbed and hospitalized; he feared further attempts on his life.
- Months later at a restaurant, Sanchez was beaten in a bathroom by three men while a bouncer watched; he suffered facial and abdominal pain and feared reopening of his prior wound.
- As Sanchez and friends left, a group (including the bathroom attackers) followed them, threatened to kill them, and appeared to arm themselves (reaching for a shiny object; bottles broken).
- One friend (Martinez-Mendoza) took a gun Sanchez retrieved and fired toward the group, killing the decedent; Martinez-Mendoza testified he fired because he feared for their safety.
- At trial Sanchez requested a justification (self-defense) instruction; the trial court refused, and the Appellate Division decision below was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a justification (self-defense) instruction was required | Court below/majority: no reasonable view of the evidence permitted justification; refusal proper | Sanchez: reasonable view of the evidence supports a subjective belief of imminent deadly force and lack of safe retreat at the moment deadly force was used; charge required | Majority reversed App. Div. order in part and remitted for factual consideration; court held trial court properly declined charge because no reasonable jury could find defendant acted as a reasonable person in self-defense (majority). Dissent: would have required the instruction and affirmed App. Div. |
| Whether safe retreat was available when deadly force was used | Majority: evidence showed defendant could have retreated; duty to retreat applicable | Defendant: duty arises only when deadly force is being employed; at the moment of the shooting safe retreat was not available | Majority found no reasonable view precluding safe retreat at the time of deadly force; dissent disagreed and emphasized timing of retreat duty |
| Standard for giving a justification charge | Prosecution/majority: charge unnecessary where no reasonable person could have acted in self-defense even if defendant subjectively believed threat | Defendant: any reasonable view permitting the claim requires the charge and submission to jury | Court reiterated that a justification charge is required if any reasonable view permits it, but applied the reasonable-person objective component to deny charge (majority) |
| Role of appellate courts in viewing evidence | Majority: view evidence in light most favorable to defendant but may nonetheless determine no reasonable jury could find justification | Defendant: record must be viewed most favorably and credibility/weighing is for jury; conflicting evidence should not preclude instruction | Court remitted for further Appellate Division consideration of facts and issues; dissent argued the evidence required an instruction and should go to the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299 (cites standard of viewing record most favorably to accused)
- People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541 (requests for justification charge must be given if any reasonable view permits it)
- People v. Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816 (objective reasonable-person component of self-defense)
- Matter of Y.K., 87 N.Y.2d 430 (duty to retreat and timing of safe-retreat inquiry)
- People v. Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555 (consideration of defendant’s background and experiences in assessing reasonableness)
- People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113 (examples of dangerous instruments justifying deadly-force response)
- People v. Cwikla, 46 N.Y.2d 434 (dangerous-instrument characterizations)
- People v. Brown, 160 A.D.3d 39 (unarmed attacker grabbing at a gun can create a deadly-force threat)
- People v. Mason, 132 A.D.3d 777 (use of glass bottle may be deadly physical force)
- People v. James, 137 A.D.3d 1587 (broken glass as deadly physical force)
- People v. White, 66 A.D.3d 585 (throwing a glass bottle can be deadly physical force)