People v. Walker

• Decision Date: 27 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 147.,147.
• Citation: 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07784,26 N.Y.3d 170,42 N.E.3d 688,21 N.Y.S.3d 191
• Parties: The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher E. WALKER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

26 N.Y.3d 170

42 N.E.3d 688

21 N.Y.S.3d 191

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07784

The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent

v.Christopher E. WALKER, Appellant.

No. 147.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 27, 2015.

Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo (Timothy W. Hoover and Patrick A. Sheldon of counsel), and Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender (James Eckert of counsel), for appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Geoffrey Kaeuper of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

STEIN

, J.

On this appeal, defendant argues that the standard criminal jury instruction on the “initial aggressor exception” to the justification defense misstates the applicable law where defendant claimed that he intervened in an ongoing fight that began in his absence in order to shield a third party from an unlawful attack. We agree and, therefore, reverse.

I.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with murder in the second degree after stabbing and killing the victim during a fight between the victim, defendant's brother and defendant's girlfriend that allegedly started at the victim's home, in defendant's absence.¹ Defendant testified that he was at his own home when his former wife notified him that someone was beating his brother with a hammer at a house down the street. Defendant grabbed a kitchen knife and went to help his brother, who he found on the victim's porch. Defendant averred that he ran onto the victim's porch, and tried to break up the fight after he saw the victim—who was high on cocaine and drunk—hitting his brother in the head with a hammer. Defendant claimed that, when the victim turned to hit him and drew back the hammer as if to strike him again, defendant threw up his arm to stop the blow and then swung his arm around, stabbing the victim in the chest. After the victim jumped or fell from the porch, defendant grabbed the hammer and walked home with the others. Defendant's brother later wrapped the knife and hammer in defendant's bloody shirt and placed them under the stairs leading to defendant's front porch, where the police found them.

Subsequent testing revealed the victim's DNA on the handle of the hammer. In addition, several eyewitnesses testified at trial that defendant's brother and girlfriend were arguing with the victim, that the three of them began physically fighting with each other, and that, shortly afterward, defendant ran onto the victim's porch, leading to a larger scuffle at the end of which the victim staggered and fell off his porch. According to these witnesses, after the three kicked the victim, defendant walked back to his house with blood on his shirt and a knife in his hand.

At the charge conference, Supreme Court indicated that it would, at defendant's request, give a charge on the justification defense. Defendant then specifically requested that the court read the standard criminal jury instruction on justification, but exclude the portion that addressed the initial aggressor rule, because defendant did not “stand in the shoes of anybody initially involved in the fight.” Alternatively, defendant argued that, if an initial aggressor charge “were to be used at all[, it]

should indicate the first person to use deadly force, not offensive force.” In contrast, the People asserted that there was “a fair view of the evidence to show that ... defendant [was] acting in concert with” his brother and girlfriend, which “makes him accountable as an initial aggressor.”

The court reserved decision on the issue, eventually ruling at a subsequent charge conference that the initial aggressor charge, as then set forth in the criminal jury instructions, was proper because it was supported by a reasonable view of the evidence. The court stated, however, that it would add language, based upon People v. McWilliams, 48 A.D.3d 1266, 852 N.Y.S.2d 523 (4th Dept.2008)

, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 961, 863 N.Y.S.2d 145, 893 N.E.2d 451 (2008), that where a “defendant initiated non-deadly force and [was] met with deadly physical force[,] the defendant may be justified in the use of deadly physical force. In that case the term initial aggressor would be properly defined as the first person in the encounter to use deadly physical force.” Defendant reiterated his request that any language regarding the initial aggressor rule be omitted entirely because he was “concerned as to whether or not there would be confusion as to which person ... they need to look at in terms of being an initial aggressor”; the court again denied that request.

In summation, the prosecutor argued that the evidence demonstrated that defendant “brought this butcher knife ... to a verbal argument that he had no business being a part of.” Although thereby acknowledging that defendant arrived after the argument had commenced, the prosecutor described the conflict in a manner that made it appear as though defendant was acting in concert with his brother and his girlfriend from the beginning, characterizing the “circumstances of this argument or confrontation” as “a three on one. Three people [20] years younger than [the victim] on his own porch accosting him.” The prosecutor repeatedly stated that “no matter how hard [the victim] tried, they just wouldn't leave” (emphasis added), “[the victim] was just trying to get them to leave” (emphasis added), and that “[i]f the defendant would have just left the porch that night, [the victim] would have lived to see another day.” The prosecutor also argued that the evidence showed that defendant “and his accomplices” brought the hammer to the victim's house, and asked the jury to consider “[h]ow was it that the defendant and his accomplices came on to [the victim's] porch?”

Thereafter, the court charged the jury on defendant's justification defense, explaining that “[u]nder the law a person

may use deadly physical force upon another individual when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself or someone else from ... the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by such individual.” The court further charged the jury on the initial aggressor rule, stating, as relevant here,

“Notwithstanding those rules that I just explained, the defendant would not be justified in using deadly physical force ... if he was the initial aggressor. Initial aggressor means the person who first attacks or threatens to attack ... Where there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant initiates non-deadly offensive force and is met with deadly physical force, the defendant may be justified in the use of defensive deadly physical force and ... in such cases the term initial aggressor is properly defined as the first person in the encounter to use deadly physical force ... A person who reasonably believes that another is about to use deadly physical force upon him need not wait until he is struck or wounded

. He may in such circumstances be the first to use deadly physical force so long as he reasonably believed it was about to be used against him ... Arguing, using abusive language, calling a person names or the like unaccompanied by physical threats or acts does not make a person an initial aggressor.”

The jury acquitted defendant of second-degree murder, but found him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. Supreme Court subsequently sentenced defendant to 25 years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction (114 A.D.3d 1134, 980 N.Y.S.2d 181 [4th Dept.2014]

), and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal (23 N.Y.3d 1044, 993 N.Y.S.2d 257, 17 N.E.3d 512 [2014] ).

II.

It is well settled that, “[i]n evaluating a challenged jury instruction, we view the charge as a whole in order to determine whether a claimed deficiency in the jury charge requires reversal” (People v. Medina, 18 N.Y.3d 98, 104, 936 N.Y.S.2d 608, 960 N.E.2d 377 [2011]

; see

People v. Umali, 10 N.Y.3d 417, 426–427, 859 N.Y.S.2d 104, 888 N.E.2d 1046 [2008], cert. denied 556 U.S. 1110, 129 S.Ct. 1595, 173 L.Ed.2d 685 [2009] ). Reversal is appropriate—even if the standard criminal jury instruction is given—when the charge,

“read ... as a whole against the background of the evidence produced at the trial,” likely confused the jury regarding the correct rules to be applied in arriving at a decision (People v. Andujas, 79 N.Y.2d 113, 118, 580 N.Y.S.2d 719, 588 N.E.2d 754 [1992]

; see

Umali, 10 N.Y.3d at 427, 859 N.Y.S.2d 104, 888 N.E.2d 1046 ). When the defense of justification is raised in cases involving deadly force, “the People must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not believe deadly force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that deadly force was necessary” (Umali, 10 N.Y.3d at 425, 859 N.Y.S.2d 104, 888 N.E.2d 1046 ). As the trial court properly recognized, the justification defense is not available to an initial aggressor except in circumstances not present here (see Penal Law § 35.15[1][b] ). However, while the portions of the charge that the court read to the jury regarding the initial aggressor rule were accurate in themselves, defendant correctly argues that the charge, taken as a whole, was confusing and misleading under the circumstances of this case because the court did not go on to explain the manner in which the initial aggressor rule applies when a defendant intervenes in an ongoing struggle to protect a third party who the defendant reasonably believes is being unlawfully beaten.

Traditionally, this Court applied an “alter ego rule” to such scenarios, holding that in cases of simple, third-degree assault, an intervenor stood in the shoes of the third party being assaulted and intervened at his own peril that he was acting under a mistaken belief of fact regarding the lawfulness of the beating (see People v. Young, 11 N.Y.2d 274, 275, 229 N.Y.S.2d 1, 183 N.E.2d 319 [1962]

). The Court reasoned that the right of a...