People v. Valentin, 28 N.Y.3d 58 (2016)

The initial aggressor exception to the justification defense is applicable when there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant was the initial aggressor in the use of deadly physical force.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, which held that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the initial aggressor exception to the justification defense. The defendant was charged with murder after shooting two men, one fatally, during an altercation. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the initial aggressor exception because the evidence supported a reasonable view that the defendant was the initial aggressor. The court emphasized that the jury could have found the defendant’s use of deadly physical force, a gun, was not reasonable, particularly considering his prior statements and the use of a mop handle by the victim.

Facts

The defendant had ongoing disputes with some individuals who were friends with his mother’s tenant. The defendant had complained to the police about the group’s behavior, and, on the night before the shooting, he stated to an officer that he knew his 2nd Amendment rights and that the police would not do anything if he shot one of them. The following day, the defendant approached a bodega with a loaded firearm. One of the individuals from the group, Hogan, approached the defendant, and the two began to argue. McWillis and others then crossed the street, and McWillis entered the bodega. Hogan and the defendant followed him inside, and an argument ensued. McWillis grabbed a mop handle. The argument continued as they exited the bodega, and at some point, McWillis put the mop handle down and then picked it up again and approached the defendant. Hogan’s testimony was inconsistent as to the exact sequence of events, but at some point, McWillis swung the mop handle, and the defendant shot Hogan and McWillis, hitting McWillis in the chest.

Procedural History

The trial court charged the jury on justification, including the initial aggressor exception. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the initial aggressor instruction improper. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, remitting the case for consideration of issues not determined on the prior appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court erred by including an initial aggressor exception in its justification charge?

Holding

1. Yes, because there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant was the initial aggressor in the use of deadly physical force, thus warranting the instruction.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the rule that in evaluating a jury instruction, the charge must be viewed as a whole. Reversal is appropriate only if the charge, viewed against the evidence, likely confused the jury regarding the correct rules to be applied. An initial aggressor instruction was warranted because the charge was requested and there was an issue of fact. The court found that the evidence, including Hogan’s testimony, placed into issue whether the defendant or McWillis was the initial aggressor as to the use of deadly force. The court reasoned the jury could have concluded that the defendant was the initial aggressor as to the use of deadly physical force because he pulled out his loaded gun and shot Hogan and McWillis before McWillis actually threatened him with the mop. The court also cited that the instruction given did not suggest the defendant was the initial aggressor but explained the law that he was not required to wait until he was struck if he reasonably believed deadly force was about to be used against him. The court noted that the jury could have concluded that the defendant’s choice to respond to a swinging mop handle with a loaded gun was not reasonable, especially in light of his prior comments.

Practical Implications

This case provides guidance on when the initial aggressor exception should be included in a self-defense charge. It underscores the importance of evaluating the entire context of an altercation, including the defendant’s actions, statements, and the nature of the threat faced. The case also demonstrates the significance of the