Legal Opinion · Dissent

The People v. Carlos Valentin

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 30, 2017No. 33Published

1DissentStein, J.

No reasonable view of the evidence could support a finding that defendant was the initial aggressor. Because this case hinged on a justification defense, defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s error of including the initial aggressor exception in its justification charge. Accord*63ingly, I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the Appellate Division order remitting for a new trial.

There is no dispute that defendant used deadly physical force and that a justification charge was appropriate here. The trial court’s instruction on justification properly began with the basic premise of that…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. DodtNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. People v. PettyNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. People v. UmaliNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. People v. WesleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. People v. MedinaNew York Court of Appeals · 2011

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API