People v. Godfrey
| Decision Date | 02 July 1992 |
| Citation | 600 N.E.2d 225,80 N.Y.2d 860,587 N.Y.S.2d 594 |
| Parties | , 600 N.E.2d 225 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Edwin GODFREY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 171 A.D.2d 1007, 569 N.Y.S.2d 852, should be reversed, and the case remitted to that court for consideration of the facts (CPL 470.25[2][d]; 470.40[2][b].
In November 1982, defendant was charged with second degree murder (Penal Law § 125.25[1] in connection with the shooting death of Rodney Marsh--an acquaintance of his--during a violent altercation between the two in defendant's home.
At trial, defendant took the stand in his own defense and admitted having fired the fatal shots, but claimed that his conduct had been justified under the circumstances (see, Penal Law art. 35). He testified that, on the evening in question, he and Marsh became involved in a heated argument, and eventually agreed to physically settle their dispute at defendant's home. Upon arriving there, defendant--at Marsh's urging--immediately went to his bedroom to get his gun. Before he could return, however, Marsh entered the room and began approaching him. A violent struggle thereafter ensued. When it finally subsided, defendant demanded that Marsh leave his house. Marsh, however, refused, and began walking toward defendant. As he did, he told defendant: "You got your gun, use it, if you don't, I will." Marsh then attempted to take defendant's gun from him, but defendant was able to "shove him off." Undeterred, Marsh again approached defendant. This time, however, defendant responded by shooting him.
Based on this account of the events leading up to Marsh's death, the trial court instructed the jury on the justifiable use of deadly physical force to defend oneself (see, Penal Law § 35.15), but refused to charge the jury on the justifiable use of deadly physical force to terminate the commission of a burglary (see, Penal Law § 35.20[3]. Defendant was subsequently convicted. On appeal, however, a divided Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the trial court had erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of deadly physical force under section 35.20(3). We conclude otherwise, and accordingly reverse.
Section 35.20(3) of the Penal Law authorizes a person to use deadly physical force against another person if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to terminate a burglary of his or her home (see, Penal Law § 35.20[3]; Seventh Interim Report of Temp.St.Commn. on Rev. of Penal Law and Crim. Code, 1968 N.Y.Legis.Doc. No. 29, at 8-9; Legislative Mem., at 2, Bill Jacket, L.1968, ch. 73; cf., Model Penal Code § 3.06[3][d]. The People contend that even if Marsh could "technically" be considered to have been committing a burglary when he was killed, defendant should nevertheless not be permitted to rely on section 35.20(3) as authorizing his use of deadly physical force. Specifically, they maintain that an individual who--like defendant--invites another onto his or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. White
...( see Penal Law § 35.20[3]; People v. Cox, 92 N.Y.2d 1002, 1004, 684 N.Y.S.2d 473, 707 N.E.2d 428; [901 N.Y.S.2d 352] People v. Godfrey, 80 N.Y.2d 860, 862, 587 N.Y.S.2d 594, 600 N.E.2d 225). The legislative history underlying the enactment of this provision reflects an intent “to protect t......
-
Godfrey v. Irvin
... ... Penal Law § 35.20(3). People v. Godfrey, 171 A.D.2d 1007, 1007-08, 569 N.Y.S.2d 852, 853 (4th Dept.1991). Two justices dissented ... On July 2, 1992, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the Fourth Department's grant of a new trial. People v. Godfrey, 80 N.Y.2d 860, 587 N.Y.S.2d 594, 600 ... ...
-
People v. Deis, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDEN
... ... "As its legislative history makes clear, section 35.20 (3) 'was intended to protect those individuals who suddenly find themselves the victim of an intrusion upon their premises by one bent on a criminal end'" (People v Cox, 92 N.Y.2d 1002, 1004-1005, quoting People v Godfrey, 80 N.Y.2d 860, 862). No reasonable view of the evidence would have permitted the jury to find that defendant reasonably believed ... that the victim was committing a burglary and that deadly physical force was necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of that burglary (see, People v Cox, ... ...
-
People v. Torres, 2
... ... Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d 142; People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299), the evidence was insufficient to establish that he shot the victim while the victim was attempting to commit a burglary (see, Penal Law § 35.20; People v. Cox, 92 N.Y.2d 1002; People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96; People v. Godfrey, 80 N.Y.2d 860; People v Bertone, 213 A.D.2d 417) ... The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit ... KRAUSMAN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FLORIO and ADAMS, JJ., ... ...