justification defense in New York

2026Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of that crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), including the charge on the defense of justification, we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the justification defense ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2020Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), I conclude that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence to disprove the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2026Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (Penal Law § 35.15; see People v Irving , 226 AD3d 703 , 703).

2025In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense and to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61 ; People v Stockfeder , 219 AD3d 641, 641 ).

2026Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of that crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), including the charge on the defense of justification, we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the justification defense ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

2024The verdict rejecting defendant's justification defense was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).

2026Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410 ).

2026Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Supreme Court's rejection of the defendant's justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 ). "[E]vidence is relevant if it has any 'tendency in reason to prove any material fact'" ( People v Mateo , 2 NY3d at 424 , quoting People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 241 ).

2025"A justification defense is negated where the defendant was the initial aggressor" ( People v Anderson , 180 AD3d 923, 923 , affd 36 NY3d 1109 ; see People v Petty , 7 NY3d 277, 285 ).

2023In any event, inasmuch as there was overwhelming evidence disproving the justification defense and no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the charge been given as requested by defendant, any error in the court's justification charge was harmless ( see People v Petty , 7 NY3d 277, 286 [2006]).

2026Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Supreme Court's rejection of the defendant's justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 ). "[E]vidence is relevant if it has any 'tendency in reason to prove any material fact'" ( People v Mateo , 2 NY3d at 424 , quoting People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 241 ).

2025Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the jury's rejection of the defendant's justification defense and the verdict of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633, 644 ).

2020In any event, the defendant's entitlement to the justification instruction is not defeated solely by reason of its inconsistency with another defense raised ( see People v Butts , 72 NY2d 746, 749 ), or testimony that the defendant's conduct was not intentional ( see People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142 ).

2019In determining whether a justification instruction is required, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v McManus , 67 NY2d 541, 549 [1986]; People v Gentile , 23 AD3d 1075, 1075 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]) and, "if on any reasonable view of the evidence, the fact finder might have decided that defendant's actions were justified, the failure to charge the defense constitutes reversible error" ( People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 145 [1983]; see McManus , 67 NY2d at 549 ; People v Masten , 203 AD2d 956, 956 [4th Dept 1994]).

2019In determining whether a justification instruction is required, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v McManus , 67 NY2d 541, 549 [1986]; People v Gentile , 23 AD3d 1075, 1075 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]) and, "if on any reasonable view of the evidence, the fact finder might have decided that defendant's actions were justified, the failure to charge the defense constitutes reversible error" ( People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 145 [1983]; see McManus , 67 NY2d at 549 ; People v Masten , 203 AD2d 956, 956 [4th Dept 1994]).

2019In determining whether a justification instruction is required, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v McManus , 67 NY2d 541, 549 [1986]; People v Gentile , 23 AD3d 1075, 1075 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]) and, "if on any reasonable view of the evidence, the fact finder might have decided that defendant's actions were justified, the failure to charge the defense constitutes reversible error" ( People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 145 [1983]; see McManus , 67 NY2d at 549 ; People v Masten , 203 AD2d 956, 956 [4th Dept 1994]).

2023We note that defendant raised a justification defense to the other charges, but justification is not a defense to weapon possession ( see People v Pons , 68 NY2d 264 [1986]).

2023We note that defendant raised a justification defense to the other charges, but justification is not a defense to weapon possession ( see People v Pons , 68 NY2d 264 [1986]).

2024Under these circumstances, we conclude that "defense counsel's decision to advance the [innocence] defense 'was consistent with strategic decisions of a reasonably competent attorney' " ( People v Ortiz , 167 AD3d 1562 , 1563 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 979 [2019], quoting People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]) inasmuch as the justification defense "would have been weak, at best, and . . . might have undermined a stronger defense" ( People v Richardson , 174 AD3d 1535 , 1536 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 983 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2019We thus [*2]conclude that "defense counsel's decision to advance the misidentification defense was consistent with strategic decisions of a reasonably competent attorney" ( People v Ortiz, 167 AD3d 1562 , 1563 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 979 [2019] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]) inasmuch as the justification in defense of self charge "would have been weak, at best, and . . . might have undermined a stronger defense" ( People v Rhodes , 281 AD2d 225 , 226 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 906 [2001]; see People v Davis , 293 AD2

2019However, the Penal Law provides that a defendant is never justified in using deadly physical force if that defendant is the “initial aggressor:” the first person in an altercation who uses or threatens the imminent use of deadly physical force (Penal Law § 35.15 [1] [b]; People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277, 285 [2006]).3 denied Mr. Brown’s request for a justification instruction, including on initial aggressor grounds, is preserved (CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Miranda, 27 NY3d 931, 932 [2016]). 3 We have no need to consider the People’s argument that Mr. Brown was not entitled to a justification instr

2018In sum, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support either the subjective or objective aspects of the justification defense ( see People v Goetz , 68 NY2d at 114-115), as there is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant believed, or had reason to believe, that Cabbagestalk was using or was about to use anything more than ordinary physical force against him at the time he brought out his gun.

2020As there was no evidence of a combat agreement between the defendant and the specific persons who approached him on the bus, or among rival gang members during a discrete period of time or at a specific location, there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the combat by agreement exception applied to negate a justification defense in this case ( see generally People v Watts , 57 NY2d 299, 301 ).

2018Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting the elements of a justification defense ( see Penal Law § 35.05[2]; People v Rodriguez , 16 NY3d 341, 345 ; People v Craig , 78 NY2d 616, 623 ; People v Watts , 57 NY2d 299, 301 ).

2020The evidence was overwhelming that the defendant was the initial aggressor who employed deadly physical force, completely negating the justification defense ( see Penal Law § 35.15[1][b]; People v Brown , 33 NY3d 316 , 320-321; People v Anderson , 180 AD3d 923, 924 ), and there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the admission of the narration testimony ( see People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 242 ; People v Petty , 7 NY3d 277, 286 ; People v Anderson , 180 AD3d at 924 ).

2018Contrary to the People's contention, the error cannot be deemed harmless, as the evidence to establish that the defendant was not justified was not overwhelming, and the jury may have reached a different conclusion had a proper and complete justification instruction been given ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 ; People v Locicero, 87 AD3d at 1164-1165 ; People v Morgan, 290 AD2d at 567 ).

2026The Lopez duty of inquiry typically arises from a statement made by the defendant at the plea or sentencing hearing that "clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" ( Lopez , 71 NY2d at 666; see id. at 664 ["During the plea allocution, . . . defendant made statements that raised the possibility of a justification defense and the possibility that he lacked the requisite criminal intent"]; see also People v Mox , 20 NY3d 936, 937-938 [2012]).

2026The Lopez duty of inquiry typically arises from a statement made by the defendant at the plea or sentencing hearing that "clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant's guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea" ( Lopez , 71 NY2d at 666; see id. at 664 ["During the plea allocution, . . . defendant made statements that raised the possibility of a justification defense and the possibility that he lacked the requisite criminal intent"]; see also People v Mox , 20 NY3d 936, 937-938 [2012]).

2025"The primary justification for this rule is that one who employs an independent contractor has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done and, thus, the risk of loss is more sensibly placed on the contractor" (Brothers v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 11 NY3d 251, 257-258 [2008] citing Kleeman at 274 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025"The primary justification for this rule is that one who employs an independent contractor has no right to control the manner in which the work is to be done and, thus, the risk of loss is more sensibly placed on the contractor" (Brothers, 11 NY3d at 257-258 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). 158514/2021 LOPEZ, WANDA vs.

2024The People bear the burden of disproving the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 25.00 [1]; People v Brown, 33 NY3d 316 , 321 [2019]; People v Brinkley, 174 AD3d 1159 , 1161 [3d Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 979 [2019]; People v Every, 146 AD3d 1157, 1161 [3d Dept 2017], affd 29 NY3d 1103 [2017]).

2023When deferring to the jury's credibility determinations and "weigh[ing] the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn" therefrom ( People v Santiago , 206 AD3d 1466 , 1467 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), we conclude that the People disproved defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt and the verdict on the murder charge is not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Infinger , 194 AD3d 1183, 1187 [3d Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 965 [2021]; People v Every

2023It is beyond question—and indeed, no one disputes—that Mr. Guerra was entitled to a justification instruction and that the burden to disprove his defense was on the prosecution (see People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 425 [2008]; People v Maher, 79 NY2d 978, 982 [1992]).

2023It is beyond question—and indeed, no one disputes—that Mr. Guerra was entitled to a justification instruction and that the burden to disprove his defense was on the prosecution (see People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 425 [2008]; People v Maher, 79 NY2d 978, 982 [1992]).

2017A defendant is justified in using deadly physical force when he or she reasonably believes, as pertinent here, "that such force is necessary . . . to protect against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force" (People v Fisher, 89 AD3d 1135, 1137 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 883 [2012]; accord People v Gibson, 141 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2016]; see Penal Law 35.15 [1], [2]). "[I]t was the People's burden to disprove [the justification defense] by 'demonstrat[ing] beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not believe deadly force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation wo

2017A defendant is justified in using deadly physical force when he or she reasonably believes, as pertinent here, “that such force is necessary ... to protect against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force” (People v Fisher, 89 AD3d 1135, 1137 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 883 [2012]; accord People v Gibson, 141 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2016]; see Penal Law § 35.15 [1], [2]). “[I]t was the People’s burden to disprove [the justification defense] by ‘demonstrating] beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not believe deadly force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation wou

2020The evidence that the defendant was the initial aggressor employing deadly physical force, which negated the justification defense, was overwhelming, and there was no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the charge been correctly given ( see People v Brown , 33 NY3d 316 , 321; People v Petty , 7 NY3d 277, 286 ; People v Jones , 3 NY3d 491, 497 ).

2019Further, in my opinion, any error in the charge to the jury was harmless as "there was overwhelming evidence disproving the justification defense and no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the charge been correctly given" ( People v Petty , 7 NY3d 277, 286 [2006]; People v Jones , 3 NY3d 491, 497 [2004]).

2021Contrary to defendant's further contention, Supreme Court properly denied his request for a justification instruction based on self-defense under Penal Law § 35.15 inasmuch as that particular defense is "inapplicable to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon, in any degree" ( People v Alexander , 160 AD3d 1370 , 1371 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1001 [2018]; see People v Pons , 68 NY2d 264, 265 [1986]; People v Almodovar , 62 NY2d 126, 130-131 [1984]).

2021In closing, I emphasize that this defendant has already received every benefit and right to which she was entitled under the circumstances, namely, a justification instruction on the homicide counts stemming from her use of the loaded firearm that she illegally possessed ( see Almodovar , 62 NY2d at 130-131 ).

2017In evaluating the justification defense, “[t]he critical focus must be placed on the particular defendant and the circumstances actually confronting him [or her] at the time of the incident, and what a reasonable person in those circumstances and having defendant’s background and experiences would conclude” (People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; see People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 425 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009]).

2017In evaluating the justification defense, "[t]he critical focus must be placed on the particular defendant and the circumstances actually confronting him [or her] at the time of the incident, and what a reasonable person in those circumstances and having defendant's background and experiences would conclude" (People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; see People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 425 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009]).

2022The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's elicitation of identification testimony from a prosecution witness during cross-examination is without merit, as the elicitation of the subject testimony was consistent with the defense strategy in pursuing a justification defense (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ).

2022Further, defense counsel's failure to object to the justification defense instructions or ask for a jury charge on the intoxication defense did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, since "an attorney is not deemed ineffective for failing to pursue an argument that had little or no chance of success" ( People v Ennis , 11 NY3d 403, 415 ; see People v Stultz , 2 NY3d 277, 287 ; People v Naqvi , 132 AD3d 779, 781 ) or for failing to make a futile objection ( see People v Torres , 185 AD3d at 971 ), and it is clear from the record as a whole that the defendant received meaningful repre

2026It is well settled that a court may permit a defendant who asserts a justification defense in a homicide trial to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence committed by the victim, provided that the defendant establishes that they had knowledge of the acts at the time of the homicide and that the acts are reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant stands charged ( see id. ; see generally People v Miller , 39 NY2d 543, 548-553 [1976]; People v Santiago , 211 AD2d 734, 734 [2d Dept 1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 942 [1995]).

2007Where a defendant charged with a homicide relies on the justification defense, evidence of a decedent’s prior specific crim inal acts of violence, of which the defendant had knowledge, are admissible provided that the acts were reasonably related to the crime with which the defendant was charged (see People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 818 [1988]; People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543, 551 [1976]; People v Fore, 33 AD3d 932, 932-933 [2006]; People v Santiago, 211 AD2d 734 [1995]).

2021Importantly, since the defendant is not required to give the People advance notice of a justification defense ( see People v Singh , 139 AD3d 761, 763 ), and the defendant has no obligation to put on a case, it follows that the defendant may rely entirely on the prosecution's witnesses to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of a potential justification defense ( see People v Steele , 26 NY2d 526, 528-529 ).

2019Here, the claimed facts and circumstances, as offered by defendant and viewed in a light most favorable to him ( see People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 144-145 [1983]; People v Steele , 26 NY2d 526, 529 [1970]), were that his conduct was justified to avoid a potential accident with other vehicles on the highway, thereby triggering a justification defense.