People v. Hill

Decision Date30 April 1996
Citation642 N.Y.S.2d 222,226 A.D.2d 309
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roosevelt HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Lisa Ellen Mudd, for respondent.

Richard Joselson, for defendant-appellant.

Before WALLACH, J.P., and ROSS, NARDELLI, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence J. Tonetti, J.), rendered November 29, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life imprisonment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The evidence at trial established that on an October evening in 1979, defendant was involved in a steadily escalating argument with the decedent, Edward Simmons, on the Grand Concourse of the Bronx, arising from a collision between the latter's car and his own. The altercation apparently reached a homicidal flash point after Simmons allegedly resorted to racial and other extreme epithets. The tragic outcome was the death of Simmons by six bullets fired into his head from a .22 caliber pistol. Shortly after the shooting, defendant absconded to Georgia, where he surrendered on this indictment a decade later.

The collision occurred near the apartment where defendant lived, and the fatal encounter that followed was witnessed by several neighbors who testified. Not surprisingly--due in part to the long lapse of time and different vantage points--there were many contradictions in the varying versions, although two of them placed the gun in defendant's hand and one described defendant as firing some shots at the prostrate body of the victim.

Defendant, 64 years of age at the time of trial and without any prior criminal convictions, testified that it was Simmons who first produced a pistol while defendant's back was turned, and when he spun around in response to a bystander's warning, the latter was aiming at his face. At this point, defendant attacked Simmons and the two then struggled over the weapon. Defendant said he managed to turn the gun toward Simmons' face and it "went off", although defendant was unable to say how many times because it was so close to his ear.

Because defendant denied any intent to kill Simmons and essentially claimed that the killing was an unintentional and accidental by-product of the struggle, the trial court declined, over objection, to charge the defense of justification. If the jury chose to believe defendant, a reasonable view of the evidence could have established self-defense. Under these circumstances, the court's refusal to instruct the jury as to justifiable homicide (Penal Law § 35.15[2][a] was manifest error (People v. Jeffries, 166 A.D.2d 665, 561 N.Y.S.2d 86, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 962, 570 N.Y.S.2d 496, 573 N.E.2d 584; People v. Suarez, 148 A.D.2d 367, 539 N.Y.S.2d 325; People v. Huntley, 87 A.D.2d 488, 452 N.Y.S.2d 952, affd 59 N.Y.2d 868, 465 N.Y.S.2d 929, 452 N.E.2d 1257). Contrary to the People's contention, we find the error fully preserved....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Gibbs v. Donnelly, 03-CV-361.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • 7 Diciembre 2009
    ...Pro Se Supplemental Appellate Brief ("Pet'r Pro Se App. Br.") at 3, Resp't Ex. E at 92 (citing People v. Hill, 226 A.D.2d 309, 642 N.Y.S.2d 222 (N.Y.App. Div. 1st Dept.1996)). In People v. Hill, the defendant denied any intent to kill the victim and "essentially claimed that the killing was......
  • Humphrey v. State, CR
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 26 Marzo 1998
    ...self-defense was totally foreclosed as a matter of law." McCarley v. State, 257 Ark. at 124, 514 S.W.2d at 393. In People v. Hill, 226 A.D.2d 309, 642 N.Y.S.2d 222 (1996), the issue was whether a trial court's refusal to instruct the jury as to justifiable homicide was manifest when the Peo......
  • Darden v. Conway, 10-CV-0570(MAT)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • 24 Agosto 2011
    ...is charged with homicide, the prosecution must prove that it was the excessive force which caused death. Id. (citing People v. Hill, 226 A.D.2d 309, 310 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 1996) ("Even if the jury were to find that defendant employed excessive force after gaining some control of the gun a......
  • People v. Delin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 15 Diciembre 2016
    ...in such a situation the People must prove that it was the unnecessary additional force that caused the alleged harm (People v. Hill, 226 A.D.2d 309, 310, 642 N.Y.S.2d 222 [1st Dept.1996], lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 937, 647 N.Y.S.2d 170, 670 N.E.2d 454 [1996] ), which in this case was serious phy......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT