Summary
In Giamanco, as in the previously discussed First Department cases, the accused admitted that he committed the act which led to the victim being shot, but merely denied that the shooting was intentional.
Summary of this case from People v. ClarkOpinion
December 14, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court giving a charge on justification over his objection. It is well settled that the defense of justification contained in Penal Law § 35.15 (2) applies to a defendant's risk-creating conduct, even though it had unintended consequences (see, People v Magliato, 68 N.Y.2d 24, 28; People v McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541). Thus, "in a prosecution for any `crime involving the use of force, a charge on justification is warranted whenever there is evidence to support it'" (People v Magliato, supra, at 29, quoting from People v McManus, supra, at 549). The defendant testified that he and the victim had an argument during which the victim had threatened the defendant with a knife and had attempted to hit the defendant with a two-by-four. The defendant then obtained his gun and placed it in his waistband. The two continued fighting and struggling, and the gun began falling through the defendant's pants. The defendant took hold of the gun and the victim attempted to grab it from the defendant's hand. The defendant testified that his finger got stuck in the trigger guard and the gun went off. Thus, there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support the court's charge on justification (see, People v Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive, and find them to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.