failure to charge defense in New York

2023Finally, contrary to the People's assertion, the court's error in denying defendant's [*3]requests for a justification charge is not subject to harmless error analysis because where, as here, "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" ( Padgett , 60 NY2d at 145 ; see People v Brown , 33 NY3d 316 , 321 [2019], rearg denied 33 NY3d 1136 [2019]; People v Watts , 57 NY2d 299, 301 [1982]).

2021Under these circumstances, the failure to charge the defense constituted reversible error ( see People v Padgett , 60 NY2d at 145 ; People v Austin , 134 AD3d 850 ).

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]).

2018In considering whether the trial court's charge to the jury was adequate, we must consider the record in the light most favorable to defendant ( see People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 144 [1983]). "[I]f 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" ( id. at 145 ; see Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a], [c]; People v Maher , 79 NY2d 978, 982 [1992]).

2016Thus, if there is *763 any reasonable view of the evidence on which the jury might decide that a defendant’s actions were justified, the failure to charge the defense constitutes error (see People v Maher, 79 NY2d 978, 982 [1992]; People v McManus, 67 NY2d at 549 ; People v Irving, 130 AD3d at 845).

2014Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People were not required to charge the defense of infancy to the grand jury, and the grand jury proceedings therefore were not rendered defective by the failure to charge that defense (see generally CPL 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [5]; People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 411 [1996]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People were not required to charge the defense of infancy to the grand jury, and the grand jury proceedings therefore were not rendered defective by the failure to charge that defense (see generally CPL 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [5]; People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 411 [1996]).

2014There is no requirement “that the [g]rand [j]ury must be charged with every potential defense suggested by the evidence” (People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]).

2014There is no requirement “that the [g]rand [j]ury must be charged with every potential defense suggested by the evidence” (People v Valles, 62 NY2d 36, 38 [1984]).

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]).

2018Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that "it would not have been irrational for the jury to credit . . . defendant's account of the incident" ( People v Irving , 130 AD3d 844, 845 [2d Dept 2015]; cf. People v Gentile , 23 AD3d 1075, 1075 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]).

2018Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude that "it would not have been irrational for the jury to credit . . . defendant's account of the incident" ( People v Irving , 130 AD3d 844, 845 [2d Dept 2015]; cf. People v Gentile , 23 AD3d 1075, 1075 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 813 [2006]).

2016Thus, if there is *763 any reasonable view of the evidence on which the jury might decide that a defendant’s actions were justified, the failure to charge the defense constitutes error (see People v Maher, 79 NY2d 978, 982 [1992]; People v McManus, 67 NY2d at 549 ; People v Irving, 130 AD3d at 845).

2023Finally, contrary to the People's assertion, the court's error in denying defendant's [*3]requests for a justification charge is not subject to harmless error analysis because where, as here, "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" ( Padgett , 60 NY2d at 145 ; see People v Brown , 33 NY3d 316 , 321 [2019], rearg denied 33 NY3d 1136 [2019]; People v Watts , 57 NY2d 299, 301 [1982]).

1992Since a reasonable view of the evidence could support an agency defense, the failure to charge that defense constitutes reversible error (see, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299 ; People v Cierzniewski, 141 AD2d 828 ).

2023Defendant is therefore entitled to a new trial on assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and aggravated criminal contempt (§ 215.52 [1]), each of which constitutes a "crime involving the use of force" ( McManus , 67 NY2d at 549 ; see generally People v Dillon , 53 AD3d 692, 692-693 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 831 [2008]).

2023Defendant is therefore entitled to a new trial on assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and aggravated criminal contempt (§ 215.52 [1]), each of which constitutes a "crime involving the use of force" ( McManus , 67 NY2d at 549 ; see generally People v Dillon , 53 AD3d 692, 692-693 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 831 [2008]).

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]).

2019With respect to the merits of defendant's contention, it is well settled that, "[i]n determining whether a justification instruction is required, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant . . . 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 Brown , 169 AD3d 1488 , 1488-1489 [4th Dept 2019]; see generally People v Petty , 7 NY3d 277, 284 [2006]; People v McManus , 67 NY2d 541, 549 [1986]).

2019Thus, a court confronted with a request to charge justification in defense of a robbery must first determine whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that "the defendant had the requisite beliefs under section 35.15[ (2) (b)], that is, whether he believed deadly force was necessary to avert the . . . commission of one of the felonies enumerated therein[, and] whether . . . , in light of all the circumstances', . . . a reasonable person could have had these beliefs" ( People v Goetz , 68 NY2d 96, 115 [1986]).

2018A trial court must instruct the jury on the defense of justification where the evidence, [*4]viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, reasonably supports the defense ( People v Padgett , 60 NY2d 142, 144-145 [1983]; People v Gant , 282 AD2d 298, 299 [1st Dept 2001]). "[I]f 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" ( Padgett , 60 NY2d at 145 ).

1992Since a reasonable view of the evidence could support an agency defense, the failure to charge that defense constitutes reversible error (see, People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299 ; People v Cierzniewski, 141 AD2d 828 ).

1992Since the facts supporting the defense of agency were adduced during the People’s case, the defendant’s assertion of an inconsistent defense does not preclude the requested charge (see, People v Cierzniewski, supra, at 829).