39 N.Y.3d 982 (2023)
Decided by the New York Court of Appeals on December 15, 2022
New York Criminal Appeals Lawyer
Criminal Appeals Law Blog On Guns
Issue:
Whether the defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on temporary lawful possession of a weapon so she could argue at closing that she had a right to possess a weapon when she shot a single bullet through a closed door because she believed that her life and the lives of her children were under threat.
See also
Holding:
The Court of Appeals held that there was no reasonable interpretation of the facts that would allow a jury to conclude that the weapon was temporarily lawfully possessed because that defense requires that defendant show that the weapon was not used in a dangerous manner. The Court of Appeals concluded that shooting a weapon through a closed, windowless door without actually knowing who was on the other side of the door was consistent with using the weapon in a dangerous manner.
See Also:
Gun Possession: Mere possession presumes intent
Criminal Liability and purchasing a gun for another
Criminal Appeals Law Blog On Guns
Analysis:
A trial court must instruct the jury on ‘the material legal principles applicable to the particular case, and, so far as practicable, explain the application of the law to the facts’ ” (People v J.L., 36 NY3d 112, 119 [2020], quoting CPL 300.10 [2]). It is well settled that “the jury must be instructed on all claimed defenses which are supported by a reasonable view of the evidence—not by any view of the evidence, however artificial or irrational” (see People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]). A requested “ ’charge must be given if there is evidence reasonably supportive of the defense, even if there is other evidence which, if credited, would negate it’ ” (J.L., 36 NY3d at 119, quoting People v McKenzie, 19 NY3d 463, 466 [2012]).
A defendant is entitled to a jury charge on the defense of temporary and lawful possession when there is evidence presented at trial “ ’showing a legal excuse for . . . possession as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession has been obtained, the weapon had not been used in a dangerous manner’ ” (People v Williams, 36 NY3d 156, 161 [2020], quoting People v Williams, 50 NY2d 1043, 1044-1045 [1980]; accord People v Banks, 76 NY2d 799, 801 [1990]). Here, defendant used the weapon in a dangerous manner (see Williams, 50 NY2d at 1044-1045). Although no single fact is dispositive, she fired the gun blindly through a closed, windowless door, endangering anyone who might have been on the other side, striking and killing the victim, and creating a risk that the bullet would ricochet off the metal door and potentially injure her children.
Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see Banks, 76 NY2d at 800), we conclude that “ ’no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding of the tendered defense’ ” of temporary and lawful possession and, thus, County Court was “ ’under no obligation to submit the question to the jury’ ” (Williams, 36 NY3d at 160, quoting People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301 [1982]). Inasmuch as defendant’s actions were reckless and dangerous, she was not entitled to the temporary and lawful possession charge. Defendant’s remaining arguments are academic.
Summary of the Facts:
The defendant was charged with murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and tampering with physical evidence after shooting and killing her boyfriend. The defendant testified at trial that she had shot the victim in the mistaken belief that he was her estranged husband who had previously attacked her in the home. The victim had warned her not to open the door for anyone before leaving her at home with her children. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was startled awake by someone pounding on her front door, identifying himself as her husband and yelling for her to open the door. The defendant fired a single shot through the metal, windowless door, killing the victim.
At the charging conference, the defendant requested that the jury be instructed on temporary and lawful possession of a weapon, arguing that she had a right to possess the weapon at the time of the shooting because she believed that her life and the lives of her children were under threat. The People responded that the charge was unwarranted because there was no legal excuse for possessing the weapon, and it was used in a dangerous manner to kill the victim. The court charged justification in connection with the murder charge, and the jury acquitted the defendant of murder in the second degree and tampering with physical evidence but found her guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
The Appellate Division reversed and granted the defendant a new trial on the weapon possession charge, concluding that the court erred in denying her request to instruct the jury on the defense of temporary and lawful possession of a firearm. The court concluded that the undisputed evidence that the defendant shot and killed the victim did not necessarily bar the instruction because a justification defense to the homicide charge was submitted to the jury. The dissenting Justice granted the People leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and remitted the case for a determination of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court.