You are here: / / THE USE OF PEPPER SPRAY BY JAIL PERSONNEL (AFTER A WARNING) WHEN DEFENDANT...
,

THE USE OF PEPPER SPRAY BY JAIL PERSONNEL (AFTER A WARNING) WHEN DEFENDANT REFUSED TO TAKE OFF HIS SHOES WAS NOT “EXCESSIVE FORCE;” THEREFORE DEFENDANT, WHO ASSAULTED THE OFFICER FIVE SECONDS AFTER HE WAS SPRAYED, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE IN HIS ASSAULT TRIAL (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a jury instruction on the justification defense. At the jail, the defendant was ordered to take off his shoes. When he refused, after being warned, he was sprayed in the face with pepper spray. Five seconds after he was sprayed, defendant charged the officer and punched him in the head:

The Appellate Division concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, there was a “reasonable view of the evidence that the use of the pepper spray constituted excessive force in this scenario” … . …

… [T]here is no reasonable view of the evidence that the sergeant’s use of pepper spray was excessive or otherwise unlawful. The trial evidence was that defendant was given a lawful command to remove his footwear, that he was given that verbal command several times yet persisted in his refusal, and that he was specifically warned that he would be pepper sprayed if he did not comply. The officers further testified that the use of pepper spray was considered a “minimal” use of force compared to using “hands on” force to remove the footwear. People v Heiserman, 2022 NY Slip Op 07024, CtApp 12-12-22

Practice Point: Jail personnel ordered defendant to take off his shoes. He refused and continued to refuse after he was warned he would be pepper-sprayed. Hw assaulted the officer five seconds after being sprayed. The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the use of pepper spray was not excessive force and the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on the justification defense.

 

You might also like
AFTER MAKING THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR 15 YEARS ON THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (JANUARY 14), PAYMENT WAS NOT TIMELY MADE IN 2018 AND DECEDENT DIED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2018, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 31-DAY GRACE PERIOD; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE POLICY WAS AMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SUCH THAT THE GRACE PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF DEATH (CT APP).
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S USE OF A RAZOR BLADE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S ACQUITTAL ON THE RELATED “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” CHARGES IN THE FIRST TRIAL; ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE REQUIRED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BE GRANTED.
PLAINTIFFS, ATTORNEYS PRACTICING LANDLORD-TENANT LAW, ALLEGED DEFENDANT PUBLISHER OF “NEW YORK LANDLORD-TENANT LAW” OMITTED OR INACCURATELY PRESENTED SOME OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE VIOLATED GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES); THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ALLEGE DEFENDANT’S ACT OR PRACTICE WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING (CT APP).
HERE SCREENSHOTS OF TEXT MESSAGES WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED FROM THE VICTIM’S PHONE WERE SUFFICIENTLY AUTHENTICATED TO BE ADMISSIBLE, EVEN IF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED; THE MESSAGES OF A SEXUAL NATURE ALLEGEDLY WERE SENT BY THE DEFENDANT, A VOLLEY BALL COACH, TO THE VICTIM, A 15-YEAR-OLD PLAYER ON THE TEAM (CT APP). ​
PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S RESIDENCE IS CALIFORNIA AND THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION THEREFORE ACCRUED IN CALIFORNIA; UNDER NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, CPLR 202, THE ACTIONS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY ARE UNTIMELY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW (CT APP).
A JUROR WAS CONVINCED DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER HOME AND SO INFORMED THE JURY DURING DELIBERATIONS; THE JUROR WAS “GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED” AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
IN A TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, EVIDENCE THE LETTERS PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE WERE NOT RETURNED TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY DOES NOT PRECLUDE RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WITH PROOF NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (CT APP). ​
CITY OF NEW YORK CAN SUE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR DAMAGE TO CITY SIDEWALKS (CT APP).

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

UPON REMITTAL AFTER THE INITIAL PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENSE SENTENCE WAS OVERTURNED,... IF A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF A FELONY IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION WHICH REQUIRES...