self-defense claim in New York

2018Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that the People did not disprove this self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Umali , 10 NY3d 417, 425 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 744 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009]; see also Penal Law §§ 25.00[1]; 35.00).

2006He brought it with him to an argument, and the self-defense claim does not apply to the weapon count. . . .” The Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s conviction, saying that the trial court “providently exercised its discretion.” ( 19 AD3d 509 , 510 [2005].) Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

2005People v Moore, 270 AD2d 715 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 800 [2000]).

2000This court therefore ruled that defendant’s expert will be permitted to testify that defendant is a battered person (People v De Sarno, supra, 121 AD2d, at 654-655 ; 8 People v Colberg, 182 Misc 2d 798, 802 ). 9 Ordering Defendant to Undergo Psychiatric Examination by People’s Expert One State has prohibited the People from examining a defendant who has given notice that testimony regarding BWS will be offered at trial as part of a self-defense claim (State v Hennum, 441 NW2d 793 [Minn], supra).

2000This court therefore ruled that defendant’s expert will be permitted to testify that defendant is a battered person (People v De Sarno, supra, 121 AD2d, at 654-655 ; 8 People v Colberg, 182 Misc 2d 798, 802 ). 9 Ordering Defendant to Undergo Psychiatric Examination by People’s Expert One State has prohibited the People from examining a defendant who has given notice that testimony regarding BWS will be offered at trial as part of a self-defense claim (State v Hennum, 441 NW2d 793 [Minn], supra).

2000This court therefore ruled that defendant’s expert will be permitted to testify that defendant is a battered person (People v De Sarno, supra, 121 AD2d, at 654-655 ; 8 People v Colberg, 182 Misc 2d 798, 802 ). 9 Ordering Defendant to Undergo Psychiatric Examination by People’s Expert One State has prohibited the People from examining a defendant who has given notice that testimony regarding BWS will be offered at trial as part of a self-defense claim (State v Hennum, 441 NW2d 793 [Minn], supra).

1997The defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of his codefendant regarding her alleged previous suicide attempt is unpreserved for appellate review, inasmuch as the specific argument which the defendant currently raises was not advanced at trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hatchett, 225 AD2d 634 ).

1990Finally, in view of the brutality of the beating visited on the complainant and the severity of the injuries sustained, we perceive of no basis upon which to substitute this court’s discretion for that of the sentencing court (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).

1990Moreover, the omission from the verdict sheet of any reference to the justification defense cannot be said to have unduly prejudiced the defendant since the verdict sheet simply listed the two crimes charged in the indictment and the possible verdicts thereon, and the court extensively charged the jury on both the self-defense claim and its use of the verdict sheet (see, People v Sanchez, 153 AD2d 649 ; People v Fields, 134 AD2d 365 ).

1990Moreover, the omission from the verdict sheet of any reference to the justification defense cannot be said to have unduly prejudiced the defendant since the verdict sheet simply listed the two crimes charged in the indictment and the possible verdicts thereon, and the court extensively charged the jury on both the self-defense claim and its use of the verdict sheet (see, People v Sanchez, 153 AD2d 649 ; People v Fields, 134 AD2d 365 ).

1988Corp. v City of New York, 95 AD2d 655, 656 ).

1977This limitation was reversible error since the trial proof adequately raised the alternative ground of self-defense as a question of' fact for the jury (People v Shanis, 36 NY2d 697, 698 ).

1922While he was not required to exercise the best judgment that the situation required of him when viewed in the light of what we know to be the facts, nevertheless I am not in favor of relaxing the wise rule laid down in People v. Kennedy ( 159 N. Y. 346 ), where the court said of the self-defense rule: “ Before a party can justify the taking of life in self-defense, he must show that there was reasonable ground for believing he was in great peril; that the killing was necessary for his escape, and that no other safe means was open to him.

1922When one believes himself about to be attacked by another, and to receive great bodily injury, it is his duty to avoid the attack if in his power to do so, and the right of attack for the purpose of self-defense does not arise until he has done everything in his power to avoid its necessity.” (See, also, People v. Koepping, 178 N. Y. 247, 253 .) Many of our rules of justice mean injustice in some individual cases but are necessary in order that justice may prevail in the average case.