People v. Goetz
Court of Appeals of New York, 1986
Author: Jim

Facts: Defendant (D) was riding in a New York subway when he was approached by 2 of the 4 teens who were riding in the same car.  The teens told D to give them $5.  D responded by taking out an unlicensed gun and shooting all 4 of the teens, seriously injuring all of them.  D surrendered and informed the police that he knew that the teens were out to rob him.  He did not see any weapons on the teens.  D told the police that he was mugged previously.

Procedure: The prosecutor informed the grand jury that the defendant can use the defense of justification but the jury will have to decide whether he acted as a reasonable man in similar situation will act.  The trial ct. ruled that the prosecution erred by informing the jury that justification was an objective test and justification is a subjective test.

Issue: Did the trial ct. err by ruling that the defense of justification, the test is subjective and not objective?

Holding: Yes

Rationale: Under section 35 of the Penal Law, a person may use deadly force to defend himself if he “reasonably” believes that the other is about to use deadly force or is committing or attempting to commit one of certain enumerated felonies, including robbery.  The inclusion of the word reasonable shows that the legislature intended this to be an objective test and not a subjective test of reasonableness.  If we follow trial ct. ruling, then that will allow every person to set his or her own standard of reasonableness.  Furthermore, it is not true that all subjective elements are to be taken out of the reasonableness test.  The jury can consider the elements the defendant was facing at the time, the defendant’s knowledge of the assailant, etc.  Reversed.