NY Stae says you do NOT have to retreat in your own home

[skidmark]

New York's appeals court says on Dec 16, 2004 in [/B]People v. Mark P. Jones that there is an exception to the NY state rule that deadly force may not be used in self defense if retreat is possible. "In essence, our self-defense rule provides that a person attacked with deaddly force may respond in kind only if unable to retreat with complete safety. Penal Law 35.15(2)(a) contains an exception .... omeone who would otherwise have to retreat need not do so if attacked at home."

The case did not help the defendant for other reasons, but it was intetesting to see that NY does have the concept "that people's homes are their castles, and that as such one's home is a place of sanctuary; a castle to which, and not from which, a person retreats."

This info is only good for New York State, and "I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV" must be observed.

I'm not looking to rekindle the discussions about when you can use deadly force, or should be allowed to but are, for various reasons, not allowed to use deadly force. I just want folks in NY to know what their courts say about the subject.

Stay safe.

Skidmark.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Always good to have a definitive answer from the ruling elite, lest us peasants make the wrong choices.

 

[Wedge]

Correct. No need to retreat in your home in NY.

 

[Riverrat66]

NY State says you do NOT have to retreat in your own home

skidmark,

Thank you very for passing along this valuable information. It's about time NYS got up to speed with the rest of the country. Now if they would only ease some of their firearm restrictions!

If it were not for your post, many people would not know of this appeals court ruling. Including me. Kudos to you.

Riverrat66

 

[Graystar]

The appeals court did not rule that there is no requirement to retreat when attacked in your home. The court accepted as such from the start. That’s been the law for hundreds of years in NY, and affirmed in a similar case some 90 years ago. This is nothing new.

The question on appeal was not whether this exception exists or is valid. The appeal focused on whether the jury should have been instructed about the existence of the exception. The jury wasn't told about *any* requirement to retreat, regardless of location, when using deadly force in defense.

The appeals court simply ruled that the jury should have been told. However, because there was such overwhelming evidence that this was a murder and not self-defense, the court found the error harmless.