This is a discussion on NY castle doctrine within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by OffDutyCCWNY I live in NYC/NYS. If some criminal comes into my house and commits or attempts to commint a Burglary 1st degree(act ...
For instance, the first hit I found was for a man that was convicted of murder in the second degree for ten years before the decision was reversed on appeal in 1992. The trial court refused to advise the jury on the code for the justifiable use of deadly force to terminate a burglary. Ten years passed before the case was reversed.
I'll say it again. Know the law but also know how it is applied for a complete picture of what is allowable in a critical incident scenario.
Source: The People v Edwin Godfrey (1992)
In Louisiana we have a name for home invaders. Gator bait! We are fortunate to have laws that allow us to defend ourselves and our property and protect us from lawsuits (to a certain extent) if we have to defend ourselves. I couldn't imagine having to run and hide in my own home if someone was trying to break in. Of course, most of the rooms in my home have at least one firearm in them(except kids rooms) so It don't matter either way. If I get to my closet, they're screwed. But look at the real issue with the question. When it comes right down to it, are you going to refrain from using deadly force just because a law says so? Or are you going to drop them and face the law once you and your family is safe. I personally, would rather go to jail or get charged with a crime than be killed or have a family member harmed in any way.
Ruger GP100 .357 mag
Ruger p-90 .45acp
Taurus PT-140 acp
Rossi .357 mag
Hi-point .45 acp
This is not exactly the case of someone breaking into your home to commit a crime...
CASE LAW: People vs E. Godfrey
At trial, defendant took the stand in his own defense and admitted having fired the fatal shots, but claimed that his conduct had been justified under the circumstances (see, Penal Law art 35). He testified that, on the evening in question, he and Marsh became involved in a heated argument, and eventually agreed to physically settle their dispute at defendant's home. Upon arriving there, defendant -- at Marsh's urging -- immediately went to his bedroom to get his gun. Before he could return, however, Marsh entered the room and began approaching him. A violent struggle thereafter ensued. When it finally subsided, defendant demanded that Marsh leave his house. Marsh, however, refused, and began walking toward defendant. As he did, he told defendant: "You got your gun, use it, if you don't, I will." Marsh then attempted to take defendant's gun from him, but defendant was able to "shove him off." Undeterred, Marsh again approached defendant. This time, however, defendant responded by shooting him.
No it isn't, but it is an example of the use, or lack thereof, of Article 35.20 in NYS criminal courts. If this court refused to properly advise the jury on the legal application of the statute in this case of the use of deadly force, what difference does if matter if the fore ground was a home burglary or a armed robbery?
Not really the Castle Doctrine to me..
Now for the balance of the story..
Based on this account of the events leading up to Marsh's death, the trial court instructed the jury on the justifiable use of deadly physical force to defend oneself (see, Penal Law § 35.15), but refused to charge the jury on the justifiable use of deadly physical force to terminate the commission of a burglary (see, Penal Law § 35.20). Defendant was subsequently convicted. On appeal, however, a divided Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the trial court had erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the justifiable use of deadly physical force under section 35.20(3). We conclude otherwise, and accordingly reverse.
Section 35.20(3) of the Penal Law authorizes a person to use deadly physical force against another person if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to terminate a burglary of his or her home (see, Penal Law § 35.20; Seventh Interim Report of the Temporary State Commission on Revision of the Penal Law and Criminal Code, at 8-9, 1968 NY Legis Doc No. 29; Legislative Memorandum, at 2, Bill Jacket, L 1968, c 73; cf., Model Penal Code § 3.06[d]). The People contend that even if Marsh could "technically" be considered to have been committing a burglary when he was killed, defendant should nevertheless not be permitted to rely on section 35.20(3) as authorizing his use of deadly physical force. Specifically, they maintain that an individual who -- like defendant -- invites another onto his or her premises and then actively and willingly joins in that person's criminal conduct should not be permitted to kill that person merely because he or she does not promptly cease pursuing the criminal endeavor upon being ordered to leave the premises. We agree.
Section 35.20(3) -- as its legislative history makes clear -- was intended to protect those individuals who suddenly find themselves the victim of an intrusion upon their premises by one bent on a criminal end (see, Legislative Memorandum, at 2, Bill Jacket, L 1968, c 73). There is, however, nothing in that provision's legislative history or otherwise which suggests that it was also meant to protect one who -- like defendant -- invites another person into his home, fully aware that such person intends to commit a crime once inside. Such an individual is no less responsible for any ensuing invasion of his or her own security than the would-be burglar, and therefore cannot claim the protections of section 35.20(3).
WOW. That's NY for you.
Way to highlight the subtle text, Bosco.