You are here: / / FLAWED JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED REVERSAL...
,

FLAWED JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice because of flaws in the jury instructions. The court did not make clear that acquittal on the top count based upon the justification defense required acquittal on the other counts. Also the court’s charge on the use of excessive force was incomplete:

… [T]he court’s charge on the use of excessive force contained a significant omission. Even if a defendant is initially justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense, he or she may not continue to use deadly physical force after the assailant no longer poses a threat … . However, in such a situation the People must prove that it was the unnecessary additional force that caused the alleged harm … , which in this case was serious physical injury. The court’s charge on excessive force omitted the latter principle and thus impermissibly permitted the jury to convict defendant based upon a finding that although he was justified when he initially stabbed the complainant in the abdomen, defendant was not justified in inflicting subsequent wounds on the fleeing complainant, even if these additional wounds did not constitute serious physical injury. Although the parties dispute whether the additional wounds were serious, the jury could reasonably have concluded that they were not. It cannot be determined whether the jury found that defendant’s conduct was not justified because he was the initial aggressor or because, although not the initial aggressor, he subsequently used unnecessary physical force.  People v Delin, 2016 NY Slip Op 08465, 1st Dept 12-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FLAWED JURY INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/EVIDENCE (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY INSTRUCTION INCOMPLETE)/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (JURY INSTRUCTION INCOMPLETE)/EXCESSIVE FORCE (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY INSTRUCTION INCOMPLETE)

You might also like
DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT).
Landlord Properly Granted Summary Judgment in Action Stemming from an Assault on Landlord’s Premises—Plaintiff Unable to Raise a Question of Fact Whether the Assailants Were Intruders, as Opposed to Tenants or Invitees
DESPITE THE HORRIFIC NATURE OF THE CRIME, DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS REDUCED BECAUSE OF HIS MENTAL ILLNESS AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIMS BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS SEEKING TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PROVIDE TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT FOR DEALING WITH VIOLENT PRISONERS WERE NOT JUSTICIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
BOTH A FEDERAL HOBBS ACT ROBBERY CONVICTION AND A NORTH CAROLINA BREAKING AND ENTERING CONVICTION ARE EQUIVALENT TO NEW YORK FELONIES; DEFENDANT PROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY DRUG OFFENDER (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD) HAS BEEN PAID OUT WITHIN 20 YEARS OF WHEN IT CAME DUE APPLIED TO CD’S IN PLAINTIFF’S DECEASED HUSBAND’S IRA WHICH WERE RENEWED AUTOMATICALLY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT WORK FOR; BASED ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, DAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS DENIED BY SUPREME COURT; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, OVER A DISSENT, REVERSED, FINDING DAL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FIRST DEPT). ​
People Were Not Required to Disclose (Prior to Trial) Confession Made by Defendant to Health Care Worker

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD... BRAND AMBASSADOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE.