People v. Faulkner, 76 N.Y.2d 580 (1990)
A jury is entitled to a charge on a lesser-included offense only if there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater offense.
Summary
Faulkner was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and weapons charges after fatally shooting a bystander during a fight. At trial, he requested a jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense, which the court denied. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that Faulkner committed criminally negligent homicide but not manslaughter in the second degree. The court emphasized that the defendant’s actions of pulling out a loaded gun, aiming into a crowd, and disregarding a warning not to shoot demonstrated recklessness, negating any reasonable basis for a finding of mere failure to perceive risk.
Facts
Defendant Faulkner was involved in a fight at a block party.
During the altercation, Faulkner pulled out a loaded handgun.
He aimed the gun at a fleeing man he had been fighting with in a crowded area.
A companion warned Faulkner not to shoot because of the presence of a crowd.
The gun discharged when Faulkner’s arm was bumped, fatally wounding a bystander.
Procedural History
Faulkner was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and weapons charges in the trial court.
Faulkner appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of manslaughter in the second degree.
Holding
No, because no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that Faulkner committed criminally negligent homicide but not manslaughter in the second degree.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that a defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense charge only if there is a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater offense. While recklessness (required for manslaughter in the second degree) encompasses criminal negligence, the evidence did not support a finding of the latter without the former.
The court emphasized that Faulkner’s actions demonstrated a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (recklessness), rather than a mere failure to perceive such a risk (criminal negligence). The court noted that Faulkner pulled out a loaded weapon, aimed it into a crowded area, and ignored a warning not to shoot. “Nothing in the evidence presented could reasonably suggest that defendant failed to perceive the substantial and unjustifiable risk.”
Therefore, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on criminally negligent homicide, as no reasonable jury could have found that Faulkner was merely negligent rather than reckless.