Summary
In Huntley, if the jury found the defendant's conduct to be justified, then he should have been exonerated of all charges and not convicted of manslaughter as a lesser included charge (LaFave Scott, Criminal Law § 53, at 391; cf. People v Young, 65 N.Y.2d 103 [May 2, 1985]). Manslaughter in the second degree should have been reached only if the jury rejected justification and then found it necessary to resolve the permissible inconsistent defense.
Summary of this case from People v. McManusOpinion
Argued April 27, 1983
Decided June 14, 1983
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, PATRICK J. CUNNINGHAM, J.
Richard A. Hennessy, Jr., District Attorney ( John A. Cirando, Gail N. Uebelhoer and Michael P. Marmor of counsel), for appellant.
Eric M. Alderman and Gerald T. Barth for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division granting a new trial should be affirmed.
We agree with the Appellate Division that it was error for the trial court to refuse to charge, as requested, a justification defense on the lesser included charge of manslaughter in the second degree. (Penal Law, § 125.15, 125.25.)
Since a new trial before a new jury is required by this holding, we do not now address or decide whether the defendant's due process rights were violated by any statements made by an individual juror during the course of the jury's deliberations.
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER and MEYER concur; Judge SIMONS taking no part.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.