legal rationale for manslaughter charge in this case?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1911 guy said:
One's thoughts about how things should be are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yep. Because we live in Utopia and nothing needs to change. We all love it exactly the way it is.

<snip>
.
Click to expand...


The rest of this post is just a rant containing a lot of things wrong.

I'm NOT trying to 'pile on' along with the Mods..... And Mods, please correct me if I'm wrong.




JohnKSa said 'context is everything' and that is what I'd like to address for the Legal section.




Ive advocated for this section to be a little more exploratory which I feel will help people understand the legal-ness of things and how it could be applied to other scenarios.

Old lady asked a question in regards to an arrest (not a case yet) and most people tried to answer in a way of 'Well, we don't know much but based on whats reported, here's the legal difference probably used in their rationale.'.

That's awesome!




But this type of post just plain ol' doesn't belong in the Legal section.


If you don't like it, fine. But make no mistake, your personal belief IS IRRELEVANT in the Legal section.

Instead of ranting your opinion, there are more appropriate things that can be done here at THR

Such as:
Start a new thread in the Activism section and state/link what happened and that you don't agree and figure out how to change it.



IOW:
Its one thing to say, in the Legal section, something to the affect of " I see how the law is and the distinction between 'in the act of rape' and 'already left the scene' and I think its bull!


However, ranting your personal beliefs and making up conspiracy theories that the DA 'is just looking to convict someone and since 1 guy is dead and the other isn't, the living guy gets the shaft' just doesn't have a place in the Legal section.
 
Last edited:
Spats McGee said:
Yeah, that pretty well sums it up, at least in jurisdictions where SD or DoO is an affirmative defense. I don't have time to look up the relevant law, but I'd be willing to bet it's an affirmative defense in NY.



The lay explanation that I've used for several years is this: (1) In ordinary crimes, the defendant usually says, "You can't prove that I did it." (2) In SD situations, the defendant (shooter) has to take the position of, "I did it, but I had a REALLY good reason."
Click to expand...



Hi, Spatts. It's not an affirmative defense in New York. The defendant raises the defense, and, in lay terms (for our non-attorney contingent), if there's any reasonable basis for it, the court must give a jury instruction on it.

The standard instruction advises that the people (state, prosecutor) bear the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was NOT justified. For a good discussion, see Davis v. Strack, 270 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2001) (seeking federal relief from state court conviction for manslaughter and weapons possession, based on lower court's failure to allow jury instruction on justification).

New York has a limited duty to retreat except at home in cases of use of deadly force.
 
Here's a nice quote from the case above:

 Under New York law justification is a defense, not an affirmative defense;  therefore, when the defense is raised on a proper evidentiary record, the People bear the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.   See N.Y. Penal Law §§ 25.00(1), 35.00 (McKinney 1998);  Y.K., 87 N.Y.2d at 433, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 663 N.E.2d 313.   “[W]henever justification is sufficiently interposed by the defendant, the People must prove its absence to the same degree as any element of the crime charged.”  McManus, 67 N.Y.2d at 546-47, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202.   “[A] charge on justification is warranted whenever there is evidence to support it.”  Id. at 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202.  “f on any reasonable view of the evidence, the fact finder might have decided that the defendant's actions were justified the trial court should instruct the jury as to the defense and must when so requested.”  People v. Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d 142, 144-145, 468 N.Y.S.2d 854, 456 N.E.2d 795 (1983).
 
Derry, I see the point you're raising, but I'd suggest that it works pretty much like an affirmative defense in that the defense does have to provide the claim of justification "sufficiently interposed" (great phrasing! :) I'm guessing that means something more than simply saying, "well, yer honor, see it was self defense!") and then the state ("the People") has the chance to rebut that claim.

The same could be said of states where self defense is expressly an "affirmative defense." The defendant still has to admit the act and give his/her justifications s/he feel meet the terms of the law to excuse the act. And the State has the right/duty to present rebuttals to the claim of self defense.

I'd be curious to know what the fundamental differences actually are between how a true "affirmative defense" statute works and NY's "defense".
 
Sam1911 said:
Derry, I see the point you're raising, but I'd suggest that it works pretty much like an affirmative defense in that the defense does have to provide the claim of justification "sufficiently interposed" (great phrasing! :) I'm guessing that means something more than simply saying, "well, yer honor, see it was self defense!") and then the state ("the People") has the chance to rebut that claim.

The same could be said of states where self defense is expressly an "affirmative defense." The defendant still has to admit the act and give his/her justifications s/he feel meet the terms of the law to excuse the act. And the State has the right/duty to present rebuttals to the claim of self defense.

I'd be curious to know what the fundamental differences actually are between how a true "affirmative defense" statute works and NY's "defense".
Click to expand...



Hi, Sam. Nope, it doesn't work like an affirmative defense. Read the case I cited. Failure of the judge to charge justification is reversible error. Even if it conflicts with other defenses raised, such as alibi. (I think Frank disagreed with me on this point years ago, but on grounds it was stupid. Judge Scalia agreed with both of us: it's usually stupid and self-defeating to argue both justification and alibi, but it's reversible error to exclude the defenses.)

 "Under New York law, in determining whether the evidence warrants a justification charge, the court must assess the record in the light most favorable to the defendant.   See Magliato, 68 N.Y.2d at 29, 505 N.Y.S.2d 836, 496 N.E.2d 856;  McManus, 67 N.Y.2d at 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202;  Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d at 144-145, 468 N.Y.S.2d 854, 456 N.E.2d 795 (even where an aspect of defendant's testimony was inconsistent with justification defense, justification should have been charged);  People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188 (1982);  Torre, 42 N.Y.2d at 1037, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, 369 N.E.2d 759;  People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889, 260 N.E.2d 527 (1970) (because jury may believe portions of both defense and prosecution evidence, justification should have been charged even when defendant claimed alibi);  People v. Huntley, 87 A.D.2d 488, 452 N.Y.S.2d 952, 956 (Fourth Dep't 1982), aff'd, 59 N.Y.2d 868, 465 N.Y.S.2d 929, 452 N.E.2d 1257 (1983) (justification should have been charged where defendant testified, in conflict with other witnesses, that decedent had approached him with knife demanding money).   In sum, if the record includes evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonably permissible inferences in his favor, satisfies the essential elements of the defense of justification, the charge must be given."
 
Of course the NY law penal code or the cases interpreting it could have changed dramatically since 2001, and I haven't Sheppardized, but I don't see evidence of that. I know there was an effort to introduce SYG and Bloomberg opposed it, but I don't recall that it passed. Duty to retreat is narrow in NY anyway.
 
I'm afraid my layman's mind isn't quite grasping the bright line of difference you're trying to explain. I read that "[A] charge on justification is warranted whenever there is evidence to support it," and it sounds very much like the idea that an affirmative defense is sustained when there is evidence to support the claim that the circumstances warranted and excused the lethal force used, under the law.

Can you go a little further in explaining this?
 
Hi, Sam. Let's assume the People prove the defendant D killed victim V. D claims self-defense and attests he feared for his life. The DA then has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was NOT justified. D has only to raise evidence that, interpreted in the light most favorable to D, could reasonably support justification. Then the DA has the burden of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

In an affirmative defense, to prove justification, D generally concedes the killing and then D has the burden to prove his actions were self defense, i.e., that he was not the first aggressor, that he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm, that he could not retreat in safety (if applicable), etc.

Cases often turn on who has the burden of proof, so it makes a big difference. I hope that was clearer.
 
Spats, Derry, Sam,

I think we're getting into the too "inside baseball" realm. We're starting to get into the nuances under New York law of the parties respective burdens of (1) production (producing evidence); (2) proof; and (3) persuasion. Let me see if I can sort the issues out in a way perhaps more accessible to our lay audience:

  1. If a defendant is on trial for a crime involving violence against another person, and if the defendant's is claiming self defense or justification to avoid criminal liability, he needs the judge to instruct the jury about self defense. The judge isn't going to do that just because the defendant asks. There will need to be some amount of evidence supporting his claim of self defense. How much, or what type, of evidence will have to be in the record in order to require the judge to give a self defense instruction will vary from State to State.

    • In New York it appears to be relatively easy for a defendant to clear the necessary evidentiary hurdle and thus compel the judge to give an instruction on self defense. But it's still not his for the mere asking.

    • As Derry 1946 pointed out in applicable New York case law (emphasis added):
      "Under New York law, in determining whether the evidence warrants a justification charge, the court must assess the record in the light most favorable to the defendant.   See Magliato, 68 N.Y.2d at 29, 505 N.Y.S.2d 836, 496 N.E.2d 856;  McManus, 67 N.Y.2d at 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202;  Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d at 144-145, 468 N.Y.S.2d 854, 456 N.E.2d 795 (even where an aspect of defendant's testimony was inconsistent with justification defense, justification should have been charged);  People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188 (1982);  Torre, 42 N.Y.2d at 1037, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, 369 N.E.2d 759;  People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889, 260 N.E.2d 527 (1970) (because jury may believe portions of both defense and prosecution evidence, justification should have been charged even when defendant claimed alibi);  People v. Huntley, 87 A.D.2d 488, 452 N.Y.S.2d 952, 956 (Fourth Dep't 1982), aff'd, 59 N.Y.2d 868, 465 N.Y.S.2d 929, 452 N.E.2d 1257 (1983) (justification should have been charged where defendant testified, in conflict with other witnesses, that decedent had approached him with knife demanding money).   In sum, if the record includes evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonably permissible inferences in his favor, satisfies the essential elements of the defense of justification, the charge must be given."
      Click to expand...

  2. If the defendant can get his self defense instruction, the prosecution must overcome the claim of justification in order to get its conviction. Generally the burden of proof on the prosecution in such cases will be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

  3. But the practical reality is that, in any case, the less convincingly the evidence, taken as a whole, supports the defendant's self defense claim, the easier it will be for the prosecution to overcome the defendant's claim of justification. And if the defendant has a serious hope to escape conviction on the basis of justification, he will, as a practical matter, want to assure that there will be sufficient, convincing evidence supporting his claim.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for the clarifications. Derry, thanks for the correction on the affirmative defense in NY. That sounds very much like how it works in AR, but I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that SD or DoO is an affirmative defense in most jurisdictions. I was giving an educated guess, but also a wrong one.

If anyone wants, I can go back later and KeyCite (essentially Sheppardize) the cases in WestLaw if necessary.
 
Spats McGee said:
....If anyone wants, I can go back later and KeyCite (essentially Sheppardize) the cases in WestLaw if necessary.
Click to expand...
I'm glad one of us is still working for a living and has access to WestLaw. Now that the cost of such things would come out of my pocket WestLaw is too expensive. I make do with Fastcase.
 
Spats McGee said:
Thank you all for the clarifications. Derry, thanks for the correction on the affirmative defense in NY. That sounds very much like how it works in AR, but I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that SD or DoO is an affirmative defense in most jurisdictions. I was giving an educated guess, but also a wrong one.



If anyone wants, I can go back later and KeyCite (essentially Sheppardize) the cases in WestLaw if necessary.
Click to expand...



Glad to jump in, and thank you. In the case I cited, Judge Sotomayor was one of the circuit judges. She's done well for herself since then. :)
 
Thanks to All for your time and also the efforts in keeping the 'inside baseball' talk in relative layman terms.

I truly do appreciate and try to absorb.
 
Coming back to this --

Derry 1946 said:
...A mitigating factor (like "extreme emotional disturbance" or the concept of "temporary insanity" or "irresistible impulse") can result in a reduced charge or no charge or an acquittal. It's not the same thing as a justification, such as self defense, which can also result in a reduced charge or no charge or an acquittal.

Both can be present in the same alleged crime. Their permutations and interactions are very convoluted, probably beyond the scope of this thread, unless Frank decides to generously devote a large chunk of his time, as he often does. Or unless it's covered in some other thread I've never run across.....
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, and indeed would probably make a good law review article. However, I did touch upon some of those issues in this post in the thread, What is the Usual Charge if Self-Defense by Lethal Means is Not Upheld by Authorities:
Frank Ettin said:
gvf said:
I.E., If I claimed I killed a man by reason of Self-Defense and the Police Investigation find my claim is not justified: what will I usually be Charged with if there is any Charge that could be said to be "Usual"....
Click to expand...

Let's start by having a look at the various types of "homicide."

  • "Homicide" is simply the killing of one person by another. So let's examine how the law looks at "homicide."

    • "Homicide" is not a crime. Homicide might be a crime, or it might not be a crime.

    • A homicide can be --

      1. Accidental;

      2. Negligent;

      3. The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;

      4. Intentional without malice (evil intent);

      5. Intentional with malice; and

      6. Intentional, premeditated and with malice.

    • An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.

    • A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.

    • Homicides (3) - (6) are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively.

    • The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.

    • If you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.

    • Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.

  • Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.

    • Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.

      1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.

      2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.

      3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.

    • The amount of force an actor my justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.

      1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --

        • Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;

        • Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and

        • put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.

      2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."

      3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.

      4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.

      5. And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.

    • If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.

      • Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.

      • If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.

      • Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.

        1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?

        2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.

        3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.

        4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.

    • Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.

  • ...

  • Often a failure to establish justification will result in a conviction for voluntary manslaughter.

    1. Emotional stress will often negate malice and thus takes murder off the table. Emotional stress could come from provocation insufficient to reasonably justify a response with lethal force, a genuine but unreasonable fear, surprise (finding your spouse in flagrante delicto with someone), etc.

    2. Sometimes something like a delay or re-engagement could be found to add the element of malice necessary for a conviction of murder, e. g., such as in the Ersland case.

    3. Whether or not a defendant acted with malice is generally a jury question. So in most cases, however, the charge will be murder. The jury will be then usually have the option to convict of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense if it finds criminal culpability but no malice.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the quotes and links, Frank. Maybe I'll work on the law review article when I get back from vacation. :)

A major complication is that the law in this area is so specific to state. It can be very misleading to deal in generalities, as witness the confusion over affirmative defense versus not.
 
Derry 1946 said:
...It can be very misleading to deal in generalities, as witness the confusion over affirmative defense versus not.
Click to expand...
Of course understanding that difference, in depth, is vital to the practitioner defending a client at trial. I suggest it's somewhat less significant to the private citizen trying to understand his rights to use force to defend himself and his family.

The "take home" message for the private citizen is, essentially, that the justification for his act of violence against another human will not be taken for granted or assumed. There will need to be evidence from which could be inferred that the essential elements needed to support a finding of justification have been satisfied, and one's likelihood of success will be related to how convincing that evidence is.

And I try to emphasize that because the reality is that no one is a "certified good guy" whose action are automatically above reproach or beyond question. So even generally honest, ordinary folks like Jerome Ersland and Markus Kaarma will wind up in prison when they resort to violence a jury finds not to be justified under the circumstances .
 
Frank Ettin said:
Of course understanding that difference, in depth, is vital to the practitioner defending a client at trial. I suggest it's somewhat less significant to the private citizen trying to understand his rights to use force to defend himself and his family.

The "take home" message for the private citizen is, essentially, that the justification for his act of violence against another human will not be taken for granted or assumed. There will need to be evidence from which could be inferred that the essential elements needed to support a finding of justification have been satisfied, and one's likelihood of success will be related to how convincing that evidence is.

And I try to emphasize that because the reality is that no one is a "certified good guy" whose action are automatically above reproach or beyond question. So even generally honest, ordinary folks like Jerome Ersland and Markus Kaarma will wind up in prison when they resort to violence a jury finds not to be justified under the circumstances .
Click to expand...



I completely agree. It's a great challenge to try to balance clarity with accuracy. Any simplification is a compromise. You do an excellent job of explaining the basics in a way that puts the sincere lay student of the pertinent laws on the right track. And you have your hands full with tamping down the persistent misguided myths. My hat's off to you. :)
 
Quote: "Let's assume the People prove the defendant D killed victim V. D claims self-defense and attests he feared for his life."

As I understand it, for a claim of self-defense to work, you first must openly admit that you did the deed: the state does not have to prove defendent D killed victim V. D has already admitted that D killed V. If the state has had to prove D killed V, I understand it is too late for D to claim self-defense.
 
Thanks for the correction, the explanation of the difference between a "mitigating factor" and a "justification", and the kind words. :)

Derry 1946 said:
That was me in post 8. I agree that the "extreme emotional disturbance" leaps to mind in this situation. As a slight point of clarification, it's a mitigating factor that can reduce murder (not homicide) to manslaughter. Both murder and manslaughter are forms of homicide, which refers to any killing of a person.

Hom = man or person; cide = killing. Similar concept as pesticide, herbicide, regicide, fratricide, suicide (the killing of a pest, an herb, a king, a brother, or oneself).

A mitigating factor (like "extreme emotional disturbance" or the concept of "temporary insanity" or "irresistible impulse") can result in a reduced charge or no charge or an acquittal. It's not the same thing as a justification, such as self defense, which can also result in a reduced charge or no charge or an acquittal.

Both can be present in the same alleged crime. Their permutations and interactions are very convoluted, probably beyond the scope of this thread, unless Frank decides to generously devote a large chunk of his time, as he often does. Or unless it's covered in some other thread I've never run across.

Old Lady New Shooter, I appreciate your questions and comments. They always shed light on the situation.
Click to expand...
 
Carl N. Brown said:
Quote: "Let's assume the People prove the defendant D killed victim V. D claims self-defense and attests he feared for his life."



As I understand it, for a claim of self-defense to work, you first must openly admit that you did the deed: the state does not have to prove defendent D killed victim V. D has already admitted that D killed V. If the state has had to prove D killed V, I understand it is too late for D to claim self-defense.
Click to expand...



In some jurisdictions (including New York, under discussion here) the defendant is permitted to raise inconsistent defenses. Inconsistency might hurt the defendant's credibility with the jury, but it might give a conflicted jury an extra avenue to exoneration.

In multiple-shooter situations, which are plentiful in New Orleans, a defendant could plausibly claim that he was shooting only at bad guys (self defense), and that the "victim" was hit by someone else's fire. I such a case, D can claim with reasonable consistency "I didn't do it, and if I did, it was self defense." Factually rare, but legally permissible.

Three examples: People v. Padgett, People v. Huntley, People v. Steele, all of NY.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

katonk
  • Locked
Manslaughter in accidental shooting.
Replies
7
Views
981
Justin
Justin
T
  • Locked
Strange "Defense of Others" Shooting in TX....
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
October
O
K
  • Locked
Follow up: Wife convicted after husband fatally shoots lover
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Don Gwinn
D
S
  • Locked
Would you be a vigilante?
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
joab
J
Old Dog
  • Locked
Child killers walk free in wake of Supreme Court rulings against felony murder
Replies
21
Views
893
Jeeper
J
Back
Top