People v. Heiserman
New York Court of Appeals
39 N.Y.3d 989 (December 2022)
Criminal Appeals Lawyer in New York
Issue:
Whether the defendant was entitled to a justification (self defense) charge where he attacked a police officer after the officer pepper sprayed him in the jail after his arrest.
Criminal Appeals Law Blog on Justification
Holding:
The Court of Appeals held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that the sergeant’s use of pepper spray was excessive or otherwise unlawful. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a charge on justification.
Criminal Appeals Law Blog on Unlawful Arrest
Analysis:
“A trial court must charge the factfinder on the defense of justification ‘whenever there is evidence to support it’ ” (People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277, 284 [2006], quoting People v McManus, 67 NY2d 541, 549 [1986]). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, and if there is “any reasonable view of the evidence [that] would permit the factfinder to conclude that the defendant’s conduct was justified,” the charge must be given (Petty, 7 NY3d at 284). “As a corollary, when no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding of [justification], the court is under no obligation to submit the question to the jury” (People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301 [1982]).
“[A] citizen may use reasonable force in self-defense where the force exerted by the police . . . is excessive” and therefore unlawful (People v Stevenson, 31 NY2d 108, 112 [1972]; see Penal Law § 35.15 [1]). Here, however, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, there 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 {**39 NY3d at 991}on” force to remove the footwear. Defendant’s contention that the force exerted was unlawful because the sergeant’s use of pepper spray was inconsistent with facility policy is without merit. No reasonable factfinder could conclude on this record that defendant reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary to defend himself from the use of unlawful physical force (see Penal Law § 35.15; cf. Stevenson, 31 NY2d at 112-113).
Factual Summary:
The New York State Court of Appeals has reversed a decision by the Appellate Division and remanded the case of a man convicted of assaulting a police officer back to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court. The defendant was charged with second-degree assault after he allegedly struck a police sergeant while being processed for an arrest at the Franklin County Jail. The People’s witnesses testified at trial that after being frisked, the defendant was directed to remove his footwear, a command given to all those in custody at the jail so that footwear could be searched for weapons and contraband. Defendant refused to remove his footwear despite multiple orders to do so. After the sergeant called for backup, he specifically warned the defendant that he would pepper spray him if he did not remove his footwear. The defendant continued to refuse, and the sergeant sprayed him in the face. Five seconds after he was sprayed, the defendant charged at the sergeant and punched him in the head, after which the defendant was subdued by other officers. Video surveillance of the incident corroborated the testimony of the officers, and the defendant was convicted as charged.
On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to grant the defendant’s request for a justification charge. The Appellate Division concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was a “reasonable view of the evidence that the use of the pepper spray constituted excessive force in this scenario.” Two Justices dissented, and a dissenting Justice granted the People leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, stating that “A trial court must charge the factfinder on the defense of justification ‘whenever there is evidence to support it.'” The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, and if there is “any reasonable view of the evidence [that] would permit the factfinder to conclude that the defendant’s conduct was justified,” the charge must be given. “As a corollary, when no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding of [justification], the court is under no obligation to submit the question to the jury.”
The Court of Appeals held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there 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 the 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. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s contention that the force exerted was unlawful because the sergeant’s use of pepper spray was inconsistent with facility policy is without merit. No reasonable factfinder could conclude on this record that the defendant reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary to defend himself from the use of unlawful physical force.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court.