People v. Samuels

Ritter, J.P.,

dissents and votes to affirm the judgment appealed from, with the following memorandum in which Spolzino, J., concurs.

Because I cannot agree that the facts of this case warrant the exceptional remedy of dismissal of the indictment, I respectfully dissent. I believe that the defendant’s testimony before the grand jury did not require a charge explaining justification for the use of deadly physical force.

*700Initially, this case highlights an anomaly in state law. In 1967, the Law Revision Commission (hereinafter the Commission) recommended that the Criminal Procedure Law be amended to…