People v. Higgins

• Decision Date: 17 December 1992
• Citation: 591 N.Y.S.2d 612,188 A.D.2d 839
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maureen HIGGINS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 612

591 N.Y.S.2d 612

188 A.D.2d 839

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maureen HIGGINS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Dec. 17, 1992.

Dienst & Serrins (Richard A. Dienst, of counsel), New York City, for appellant.

Michael Kavanagh, Dist. Atty. (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, LEVINE, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.

YESAWICH, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered September 16, 1991, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

Defendant was indicted for manslaughter in the first degree in violation of Penal Law § 125.20, arising from an incident occurring on August 12, 1990 in the Town of Wawarsing, Ulster County, where defendant, during a physical confrontation, shot and stabbed decedent causing his death. Defendant, decedent, decedent's wife and Patrick McNamee, a friend of decedent, were camping at a park when decedent and defendant began arguing over the lack of kerosene for a campfire and the return to defendant of her knife. The argument escalated into a physical confrontation, which McNamee broke up. Then, McNamee testified, after he and decedent's wife went to collect kindling for the fire, he heard a shot. A minute or two later, McNamee found decedent on the ground, bleeding. Asked by McNamee if she had shot decedent, defendant replied that she had stabbed him. McNamee and decedent's distraught wife drove decedent to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

An autopsy revealed that decedent had a minor bullet wound in the region of the left buttock and seven stab wounds in his chest, side and shoulder. The pathologist testified that death was caused by the stab wounds to the chest, two of which were approximately three inches deep. Also entered into evidence was defendant's signed statement, in which she admitted the shooting and stabbing.

Defendant did not deny having killed decedent; her sole defense was justification. To establish this defense she called as her primary witness a psychiatrist who had treated defendant, and who opined that because of defendant's background (she had been sexually assaulted as a child), at the time of the physical confrontation with decedent, defendant felt that her life was in danger. Found guilty, as charged and sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 4 to 12 years, defendant appeals.

It is defendant's contention that County Court's instructions to the jury were inaccurate and misleading in several particulars, and that as a result the charge was rendered sufficiently defective as to mandate a reversal of the conviction. After reviewing the charge as a whole (see, People v. Adams, 69 N.Y.2d 805, 806, 513 N.Y.S.2d 381, 505 N.E.2d 946), we disagree.

According to defendant, a critical error in the charge occurred when County Court referred to justification as an element of first degree manslaughter, rather than separately as a defense. Inasmuch as justification is a legal defense which must be disproven by the People, beyond a reasonable doubt, once it has been properly raised by the defendant, we are of the view that it was not error to include the absence of justification as an element of the crime charged (see, People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202). In so doing, the court merely helps the jury to properly place the burden of proof.

Another of defendant's claims, also unavailing, is that County Court improperly instructed the jury on the law of justification as it applies to lesser included offenses, here manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide. Although, when considered alone, these passages in the charge are somewhat ambiguous, when considered in context the correct standard clearly emerges. The court repeatedly and consistently instructed the jury that a finding of justification would preclude a guilty verdict on any of the offenses charged; furthermore, when the lesser included offenses were discussed, the court reiterated that only if defe...