People v. Goetz

Facts

The court took these facts from the grand jury evidence and stressed that it reached no conclusions about what happened. On Saturday afternoon, December 22, 1984, Troy Canty, Darryl Cabey, James Ramseur, and Barry Allen boarded an express subway train in The Bronx. Ramseur and Cabey had screwdrivers in their coats, which they said were for breaking into the coin boxes of video machines. Bernhard Goetz boarded at 14th Street carrying an unlicensed .38 caliber pistol loaded with five rounds. Canty approached Goetz, possibly with Allen beside him, and stated "give me five dollars". None of the youths displayed a weapon. Goetz stood and fired four shots in rapid succession. They hit Canty, Allen, and Ramseur; the fourth missed Cabey. Goetz then fired another shot at Cabey, who was now sitting on a bench, and severed his spinal cord. Goetz told the conductor that the youths had tried to rob him, then jumped onto the tracks and fled. On December 31, 1984, he surrendered to police in Concord, New Hampshire. In tape-recorded statements made after Miranda warnings, he admitted illegally carrying a handgun in New York City for three years. He said he first bought a gun in 1981 after being injured in a mugging. He was certain none of the youths had a gun, but he feared, based on prior experiences, being maimed. He set a pattern of fire from left to right, and his stated intention was to murder the youths.

Issues

1. Does the defense of justification under New York Penal Law section 35.15 require an objective standard of reasonableness, evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the defendant's situation, rather than a wholly subjective standard based only on what was reasonable to the defendant?
2. Does post-indictment hearsay evidence conflicting with grand jury testimony require dismissal of an indictment under People v. Pelchat when the witnesses have not recanted and other independent evidence before the grand jury supports the charges?

Holding

The prosecutor's instruction to consider whether Goetz's conduct was that of a reasonable man in his situation was an accurate charge in substance, because section 35.15 retains an objective reasonableness requirement, and it was adequate for a grand jury. Later hearsay conflicting with grand jury testimony did not require dismissal under People v. Pelchat, because the witnesses never recanted and Goetz's statements and passenger testimony independently supported the charges.