4 N.Y.3d 488 (2005)
A person attacked with deadly force in their dwelling has no duty to retreat, even if the assailant is a co-occupant of the same dwelling.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter after he choked his live-in girlfriend to death during an argument. At trial, he requested a jury instruction that he had no duty to retreat because he was attacked in his own home. The trial court denied this request. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in refusing this instruction, reaffirming the “castle doctrine,” which eliminates the duty to retreat when attacked in one’s home, regardless of whether the attacker is a co-occupant. However, the court found the error harmless because the defendant did not reasonably believe he was under deadly attack.
Facts
The defendant called 911, admitting he had killed his girlfriend in their Rochester apartment three weeks prior. Police found the deceased’s body and a knife at the apartment. In a signed statement, the defendant stated that an argument ensued after the girlfriend slapped him and picked up a steak knife. He grabbed her, she dropped the knife, and he choked her. At trial, the prosecutor implied the defendant should have retreated from the apartment instead of strangling the deceased. The deceased had a blood alcohol level of .22 and was considerably smaller than the defendant.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that the defendant had no duty to retreat. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling that the instruction was not necessary but affirmed the ultimate conviction, finding the error to be harmless.
Issue(s)
Whether a person has a duty to retreat when attacked in their own home by a co-occupant before using deadly force in self-defense.
Holding
No, because Penal Law § 35.15(2)(a)(i) creates an exception to the duty to retreat when the person attacked is in their dwelling and not the initial aggressor. However, the court affirmed the conviction because the defendant did not reasonably believe he was in imminent danger of deadly force.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the “castle doctrine,” which originated in common law, provides that a person has no duty to retreat when attacked in their own home. The Court reaffirmed its holding in People v. Tomlins, 213 N.Y. 240 (1914), stating it makes no difference “whether the attack proceeds from some other occupant or from an intruder.” The Court emphasized the importance of this doctrine, particularly in cases of domestic violence. However, the Court ultimately found that the defendant was not justified in using deadly force because the evidence showed that he did not reasonably believe he was in imminent danger of being subjected to deadly force. Quoting People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 302 (1982), the court stated that a bare contention that the victim came after the defendant with a kitchen knife provides no basis to conclude that the defendant reasonably believed he was in imminent danger. Here, the victim merely picked up the knife, and the defendant had a considerable size advantage and knew the victim was intoxicated. Therefore, the court found that the incomplete justification charge was harmless error, as there was no reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different had the jury been properly instructed. The duty to retreat reflects the idea that a killing is justified only as a last resort, an act impermissible as long as other reasonable avenues are open.