85 N.Y.2d 131 (1995)
r
r
A defendant is entitled to a jury charge on a lesser included offense if (1) it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense, and (2) a reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater.
r
r
Summary
r
Defendant was convicted of first-degree assault for injuries inflicted on his infant son. He argued the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on third-degree assault as a lesser included offense. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that third-degree assault is a lesser included offense of first-degree assault and that a reasonable view of the evidence could support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater because the jury could have found the defendant lacked an awareness of the grave risk of death. This case clarifies the standard for determining when a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense charge.
r
r
Facts
r
Defendant called for emergency assistance for his four-month-old son, initially claiming the infant fell off a bed. Doctors determined the infant’s injuries were inconsistent with this explanation and diagnosed Shaken Baby Syndrome. The defendant later admitted to police that he had been under stress and had shaken the infant “pretty hard” when the baby wouldn’t stop fussing. The infant suffered severe brain damage.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Defendant was indicted on multiple charges, including first-degree assault. The trial court admitted the defendant’s statement into evidence and denied his request to charge the jury on third-degree assault as a lesser included offense. The jury convicted him of first-degree assault. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on third-degree assault as a lesser included offense of first-degree assault.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because third-degree assault is a lesser included offense of first-degree assault, and a reasonable view of the evidence could support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals applied the two-prong Glover test to determine whether the defendant was entitled to the lesser included offense charge. First, the court determined if it is impossible to commit the greater crime (first-degree assault) without also committing the lesser offense (third-degree assault). The court found that all the elements of third-degree assault are subsumed within first-degree assault, satisfying the first prong.
r
Second, the court determined if there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater. The court noted that it was not about whether persuasive evidence of guilt of the greater crime exists. Quoting People v. Mussenden, 308 N.Y. 558, 562, the Court stated that its inquiry was