People v. Steele
| Decision Date | 28 May 1970 |
| Citation | 260 N.E.2d 527,311 N.Y.S.2d 889,26 N.Y.2d 526 |
| Parties | , 260 N.E.2d 527 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. The STEELE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
James D. Constantinople, and Milton Adler, New York City, for appellant.
Burton B. Roberts, Dist. Atty. (Daniel J. Sullivan, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
On November 25, 1967, Hassell Thompson was visiting at 1077 Tiffany Street in the Bronx. As he was leaving the building, he met defendant and her brother, during which encounter defendant drew a gun and ordered him from the premises. Later that evening, Thompson returned to the area and again encountered the Steeles. He became embroiled with defendant's brother and, according to all of the prosecution witnesses, was shot twice in the leg by defendant. Thompson claimed that a knife appeared in Steele's hand and that during the fight, he was shot by defendant and then stabbed by her brother.
Other prosecution witnesses, Jose Santiago and Hector Melendez, however, testified that Thompson had the knife but that Steele wrested it from him. According to their story, Thompson was stabbed by defendant's brother and then shot by defendant.
Defendant testified that she was not in the area when the shooting occurred and did not shoot Thompson.
During his summation, defense counsel attempted to argue in the alternative that, if Ida Steele did the shooting, it was in defense of her brother. A prosecution objection was sustained.
In turn, the prosecutor, in his summation, stated:
Defense counsel requested that the court charge justification as a defense under section 35.15 of the revised Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40. The request was predicated upon the testimony that Thompson had the knife and that the jury might find that defendant was acting in defense of a third person (revised Penal Law, § 35.15, subd. 1). The court incorrectly refused to so charge.
Justification is a 'defense' (revised Penal Law, § 35.00)--as opposed to an 'affirmative defense'--and 'the people have the burden of disproving such defense beyond a reasonable doubt' (revised Penal Law, § 25.00). Of course, justification, as an affirmative element, need not be disproved in every case. Ordinarily, the possibility of the defense would not appear until injected by the defendant (see, e.g., People v. Sandgren, 302 N.Y. 331, 98 N.E.2d 460) but, here, the prosecution's case, viewed separately, warrants the requested charge. The People's eyewitnesses testified that Thompson possessed the knife, and the assistant district attorney, with commendable candor, frankly admitted that the complaining witness was the initial aggressor. Consequently, a jury could find that defendant reasonably believed that Thompson was 'using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force' (revised Penal Law, § 35.15, subd. 1, par. (a)) at the time she shot him. In determining the requirements of the court's charge to the jury (Code Crim.Proc., § 420), defendant is entitled to he 'most favorable view of the record' (cf., People v. Battle, 22 N.Y.2d 323, 324, 292 N.Y.S.2d 661, 239 N.E.2d 535, 536; see, also, People v. Asan, 22 N.Y.2d 526, 293 N.Y.S.2d 326, 239 N.E.2d 913; People v. Malave, 21 N.Y.2d 26, 286 N.Y.S.2d 245, 233 N.E.2d 269; People v. Mussenden, 308 N.Y. 558, 127 N.E.2d 551). Although w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. Ercole
...that a justification defense was not absolutely precluded by Horton's misidentification theory. See People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889, 260 N.E.2d 527 (N.Y.1970) (assertion of alibi defense does not preclude justification defense); People v. Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 748, 53......
-
Rodriguez v. Heath
...defense is applicable to have the jury instructed on it without requiring a heavy burden of proof. See People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 528, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889, 260 N.E.2d 527 (1970). Thus, "if on any reasonable view of the evidence, the fact finder might have decided that defendant's actions......
-
State v. Bailey
...gun unlawfully. See, e.g., People v. Lewis, 116 App.Div.2d 16, 19-20, 499 N.Y.S.2d 709 (1986); see also People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 260 N.E.2d 527, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889 (1970) (reversing convictions for assault and unlawful weapon possession for trial court's failure to instruct on se......
-
Gibbs v. Donnelly
...is to be construed in the light most favorable to the defendant." Blazic, 900 F.2d at 540 (citing People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889, 260 N.E.2d 527 (N.Y. 1970); People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202 (N.Y. 1986)). If there exists a reason......
-
17.15 - B. Justification
...than the premises.2742--------Notes:[2713] . PL art. 35[2714] . People v. Riordan, 117 N.Y. 71, 22 N.E. 455 (1889); People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889 (1970); People v. Sackmann, 49 A.D.2d 542, 370 N.Y.S.2d 122 (1st Dep’t 1975). However, sometimes the People’s case in chief m......
-
17.13 - IV. “Ordinary” Defenses
.... People v. Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 536 N.Y.S.2d 730 (1988); People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1986); People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 528, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889...
-
17.28 - A. Inconsistent Defenses Are Not Barred
...both defense and prosecution’s evidence. Inconsistent defenses are not barred.2814--------Notes:[2814] . People v. Steele, 26 N.Y. 526, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889...