People v. Darryl Brown
NY Slip Op 03529
New York Court of Appeals
Decided on May 7, 2019
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in denying a request for a justification charge where the defendant was the first to threaten the use of deadly physical force.
HOLDING:
The Court held that the defendant is not entitled to a justification charge. In order for the trial court’s charge to the jury to be proven adequate, the record must be considered in favor of the defendant and if the evidence supports the defense of justification, the trial court must instruct the jury as to the defense. Here, the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on justification because even when the Court viewed the facts in favor of the defendant, it was clear that the defendant was the initial aggressor in his use of deadly physical force.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Darryl Brown was indicted for murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree. Three witnesses who saw part of the crime testified at trial. The first witness heard arguing in the hallway and identified the defendant, his daughter and the victim from her peephole. The argument continued as they left her line of vision and afterwards she heard the defendant’s daughter yell “No, daddy, no!” followed by a loud boom. When the witness left her apartment, she saw the victim lying on the lobby floor, and saw the defendant and his daughter re-enter their apartment. She called 911.
The second witness observed the argument as she was entering the building. She saw an older man (defendant) walk away and a younger man (victim) follow, making gestures that seemed as if the victim was “trying to reason” with the defendant. The argument continued after she could no longer see them and she heard a shot being fired. She saw the younger man fall and heard a woman scream. The third witness was distributing mail when he saw the defendant arguing with the victim in the hallway. He testified that the victim instigated the defendant, even throwing a few punches which did not reach the defendant. He also testified that the defendant was holding a gun and after the victim swiped at it, he heard the defendant shoot.
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
The New York Court of Appeals held that the defendant was not entitled to a justification charge. Under Penal Law § 35.15, a defendant is justified in using deadly force if he believes deadly force is necessary to avert the imminent use of deadly force and that in light of all the circumstances a reasonable person could have had these beliefs. However, the Penal Law provides that a defendant is never justified in using deadly physical force if he or she is the initial aggressor. Justification is a defense and therefore the People bear the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
In evaluating the charge to the jury, the record must be considered in favor of the defendant. If any reasonable view of the evidence shows that the defendant’s actions were justified, the failure to charge the justification defense constitutes reversible error. When no reasonable view of the evidence would support such a finding, the court is under no obligation to charge justification. In this case, the victim was unarmed, and swiped at the gun only after the defendant wielded it. Weighing the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant, as a matter of law, the defendant was the initial aggressor as a matter of law.
The term initial aggressor is defined as the first person in the encounter to use deadly physical force. In determining the initial aggressor, the Court reviews the sequence of attacks and the nature of the attacks and asks: (1) which attacks were physical force and; (2) which attacks were deadly physical force? Penal Law § 10.10 defines deadly physical force as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is capable of causing death or other serious physical injury. Deadly physical force encompasses acts by a person that cause the defendant to believe that the defendant is facing the imminent threat of deadly force as well as the first blow or infliction of the first wound. People v Dodt 61 NY2d 408 (1984) held that the imminent threat to use a gun constituted the threat of deadly physical force even if the gun is never fired. The imminent threat to use a gun against another is a threat of deadly physical force. The first person to make an imminent threat is, the initial aggressor with respect to deadly physical force.
Here, the defendant had his gun in a position where he was ready to aim and fire before the victim’s efforts to swipe at the gun. The circumstances surrounding that act: (1) the verbal altercation; (2) the defendant being armed and pursuing the unarmed victim into the building’s lobby and; (3) both the defendant’s daughter and the victim himself expressed their subjective belief that the defendant had threatened the imminent use of deadly force, provided further support for the conclusion that the defendant’s drawing of a gun here could only be understood as an imminent threat of deadly physical force. The initial aggressor rule does not allow the defendant to claim justification unless a reasonable jury could conclude: (1) that the defendant withdrew from the encounter after drawing his gun, communicated that withdrawal to the victim, and the victim thereafter used or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force or; (2) that the victim himself was the initial deadly force aggressor. No reasonable jury could reach either conclusion despite viewing the evidence in a light most favor able to the defendant.