People v. Reynoso

• Decision Date: 15 December 1988
• Parties: , 534 N.E.2d 30 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ignasio REYNOSO, Also Known as Ignacio Reynoso, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 113

537 N.Y.S.2d 113

73 N.Y.2d 816, 534 N.E.2d 30

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ignasio REYNOSO, Also Known as Ignacio Reynoso, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 15, 1988.

Richard Joselon and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

Paul T. Gentile, Dist. Atty. (Allen M. Hecht and Billie Manning, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 133 A.D.2d 1019, 519 N.Y.S.2d 989, should be affirmed.

Charged with manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20[1] ), defendant maintains he was entitled to a charge of justification (Penal Law § 35.15). Although the record must be considered in the light most favorable to the accused (People v. Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d 142, 468 N.Y.S.2d 854, 456 N.E.2d 795), a court need not charge justification if no reasonable view of the evidence establishes the elements of the defense (People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188; People v. Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 373-374, 426 N.Y.S.2d 224, 402 N.E.2d 1127). Here, the trial court properly refused to charge the jury on the justification defense because "[e]ven if defendant had actually believed that he had been threatened with the imminent use of deadly physical force, and there is no evidence that he had so believed," the jury could not rationally conclude that his reactions were those of a reasonable man acting in self-defense (People v. Collice, 41 N.Y.2d 906, 907, 394 N.Y.S.2d 615, 363 N.E.2d 340; see also, People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 506 N.Y.S.2d 18, 497 N.E.2d 41).

In addition to his complaint about the charge, defendant contends that the trial court made several incorrect evidentiary rulings which require a reversal. We disagree. The evidence that defendant had been shot in the chest approximately 90 days prior to this incident was excluded, not, as defendant now claims, because he did not link it to his defense through his own testimony, but rather because there was no evidence at all to establish a nexus between the prior shooting and the shooting for which he was currently on trial. Without additional proof establishing how the prior gunshot affected defendant's current state of mind, the mere fact of the earlier shooting was not relevant and therefore properly excluded (see, People v. Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543, 384 N.Y.S.2d 741, 349 N.E.2d 841).

Defendant also claims that error was committed when the trial court excluded a statement made to defendant's sister, within two hours after the shooting, that defendant believed the victim had been armed. Although defendant argued that this evidence was offered solely to establish his state of mind, and thus was not hearsay (see, Richardson, Evidence §§ 203, 205 [Prince 10th ed.] ), the...