You are here: / / THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED A PEN TO PUNCTURE THE CHEEK OF THE VICTIM CONSTITUTED...

THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED A PEN TO PUNCTURE THE CHEEK OF THE VICTIM CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT USED A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND CASE, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE ORDINARY-NONDEADLY-FORCE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the ordinary-nondeadly-force justification defense in this Assault Second prosecution was properly denied. The defendant did not request a jury instruction on the deadly-force-justification defense. Defendant’s use of a pen to puncture the victim’s cheek constituted use of a dangerous instrument:

The video surveillance captures the defendant reaching into his bag or pocket with his right hand and then immediately striking the complainant with that same hand. Photographs of the complainant’s cheek reflect what appears to be a puncture of the cheek. The photograph of the outside of the complainant’s cheek shows that there was a thin, horizontal cut adjacent to the round through-and-through puncture on the complainant’s cheek, consistent with a sharp object, such as the point of a pen, scratching the complainant’s cheek before the object plunged into it.

The record further reveals that police officers who arrived at the scene observed the complainant bleeding from a puncture wound on the side of his face. At the time of defendant’s arrest, the police recovered a pen that defendant was holding in his right hand. …

Under the facts presented, the only possible justification charge that would have been available to defendant would have been a charge of justifiable use of deadly, not ordinary, physical force (see Penal Law § 35.15[2]; People v Mickens, 219 AD2d 543, 544 [1st Dept 1995] …). People v Marishaw, 2019 NY Slip Op 05320, First Dept 7-2-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).
Police Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity, Defendant Had Right to Ignore Police Command to Stop
PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUIRED NYC HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE; THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE RENOVATION WORK PLAINTIFF COMPLETED WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT NECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay Evidence Can Be Considered in Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion As Long As It Is Not the Only Evidence​
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECOVER MEDICAID OVERPAYMENTS FROM PERSONAL CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE WAS NOT ADEQUATE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE INCIDENT AND DEMONSTRATED NO PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (FIRST DEPT).
Post-Conviction DNA Test Results Warranted New Trial Under 2012 Amendment to CPL 440.10

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

STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT DURING A CONTROLLED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE... PLAINTIFF FELL IN A POTHOLE IN THE PATH FROM THE BUS TO THE CURB, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S...