People v. Fidel Vega
New York Court of Appeals
NY Slip Op 03530
Decided: May 7, 2019
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in charging instructions to the jury where the instrument used in an assault is not categorized as a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
HOLDING:
The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury to apply the legal rules of justified use of deadly physical force because there is no particular rule regarding which justification instructions are appropriate where the charged crime contains a dangerous instrument element. When the defendant requests a justification charge, the trial court must view the record in the light most favorable to the defendant and determine whether any reasonable view of the evidence would allow for the conclusion that the defendant’s conduct was justified, and, if so, which instructions are applicable.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Defendant Fidel Vega was charged with various crimes stemming from beating the victim with a belt. Count one, assault in the second degree, required the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to cause physical injury to the victim with a dangerous instrument, a belt with a metal buckle. The trial court instructed the jury on the justified use of non-deadly physical force in connection with the lesser included offense – which does not contain a dangerous instrument element – of assault in the third degree. At the People’s request, the court also instructed the jury that if it found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant used a dangerous instrument, then it should apply the legal rules pertaining to the justified use of deadly physical force.
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury to apply the legal rules pertaining to the justified use of deadly physical force. The Penal Law defines deadly physical force as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is capable of causing death or other serious physical injury. It defines a dangerous instrument as any instrument, article, or substance which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.
Usually, the Court does not rule out the possibility that a defendant may be entitled to a jury instruction on the justified use of non-deadly physical force, even though the defendant is charged with a crime containing a dangerous instrument element. There is no particular rule regarding which justification instructions are appropriate based on the fact that the defendant has been charged with a crime which contains a dangerous instrument element. When the defendant requests a justification charge, the trial court must view the record in the light most favorable to the defendant and determine whether any reasonable view of the evidence would allow for the conclusion that the defendant’s conduct was justified.
In this case, review of the record indicated that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant attempted or threatened to use the belt in a manner capable of causing death or serious physical injury. The New York Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law.