Court Opinion

ID: 9877599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:11:17.446868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:25.038794
License: Public Domain

DeJoseph and Scudder, JJ.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent because we disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The crucial area of our disagreement is on the issue whether defendant reasonably believed that she was confronted by the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. It is well settled that “[a] defendant is justified in using deadly physical force when he or she reasonably believes, as pertinent here, ‘that such force is necessary ... to protect against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force’ ” (People v Every, 146 AD3d 1157, 1161 [2017]). “[I]t was [undoubtedly] the People’s burden to disprove [the justification defense] by demonstrating] beyond a reasonable doubt that 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” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, as in Every, it is undisputed that “the victim was unarmed and that defendant was the first to escalate the confrontation by using a deadly weapon,” i.e., a knife (id. at 1162). “The use of a ‘knife to inflict injury upon one’s victim constitutes the use of deadly physical force’ ” (People v Haynes, 133 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016]). Thus, in our view, the jury could have reasonably concluded that “ ‘the predicate for the use of deadly force [, that is,] the reasonable belief that one is under deadly attack[, was] lacking’ ” (Every, 146 AD3d at 1162; see People v Goley, 113 AD3d 1083, 1083-1084 [2014]). While the trial record supports the majority’s observations that the victim was pulling defendant’s hair, forcing himself into the bathroom and/or bedroom, and preventing her from leaving, we conclude that those actions do not amount to deadly physical force to justify defendant’s actions (see Goley, 113 AD3d at 1083-1084). *1247Simply stated, in our view, defendant resorted to more force than was necessary (see People v Madore, 145 AD3d 1440, 1441 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 1034 [2017]; People v Jones, 151 AD2d 997, 997 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 812 [1989]). In view of the foregoing, we conclude that “the evidence at trial established that the victim [ ] [was] not using or attempting to use deadly physical force against defendant at the time” of the altercation (Haynes, 133 AD3d at 1239), and the People therefore effectively “disproved the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Johnson, 103 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 944 [2013]). Inasmuch as we conclude that the remaining contentions raised in defendant’s main and pro se supplemental briefs do not require reversal or modification of the judgment, we would affirm.
Present— Whalen, P.J., Smith, DeJoseph, Troutman and Scudder, JJ.