People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541 (1986)
Justification is a defense to depraved indifference murder, and when evidence supports the defense, the prosecution must disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
Summary
McManus was convicted of depraved indifference murder for firing a rifle into a group, fatally wounding one. He argued he shot to scare them off as they were robbing his companion. At trial, he requested a justification charge for the depraved indifference murder count, but the court refused, stating justification requires intent, incompatible with depraved indifference. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding justification is a valid defense to depraved indifference murder, and the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt when the defense is raised.
Facts
McManus and a friend were approached by five males, one of whom put a gun to the friend’s stomach. McManus ran, and upon looking back, saw his friend being robbed and beaten. The group chased McManus to his home where he retrieved a rifle. The group then began assaulting McManus’ friend again. McManus fired the rifle, hitting one of the group members.
Procedural History
McManus was indicted for intentional murder and depraved indifference murder. At trial, he requested a jury instruction on justification for both counts. The court instructed on justification for intentional murder but refused for depraved indifference murder. The jury acquitted McManus of intentional murder but convicted him of depraved indifference murder. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, vacated the conviction, and remitted the case for a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether justification is a legally cognizable defense to the charge of depraved indifference murder, and whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on justification with respect to the depraved indifference murder count.
Holding
Yes, because justification does not make a criminal act lawful, but rather, renders the use of force lawful under certain circumstances, negating criminality altogether. The People have the burden of disproving justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that justification, under Penal Law Article 35, affirmatively permits the use of force under certain circumstances, rendering the conduct lawful, not merely excusing it. The defense applies to any offense involving the use of force, regardless of the defendant’s mental state. The court stated, “[i]n any prosecution for an offense, justification is available” (Penal Law § 35.00). The court rejected the argument that depraved indifference murder, by definition, cannot be justified, stating that this begs the question by assuming the criminality of the use of force. If the conduct is justified, it cannot be the basis of any crime. The court noted that “[i]f the conduct is justified, it simply cannot be the basis of depraved indifference murder or any other crime.” The court emphasized that if any reasonable view of the evidence would permit a fact finder to decide the conduct was justified, an instruction on the defense must be given. “Under such circumstances, refusal to charge that the People must disprove the alleged justification is reversible error.”