People v. Goetz

Facts

Canty, Cabey, Ramseur, and Allen, all young black men, boarded a subway train in The Bronx and headed toward lower Manhattan. Two of the four, Ramseur and Cabey, had screwdrivers inside their coats, which they said were to be used to break into the coin boxes of video machines. D, a white male, boarded this subway carrying an unlicensed .38 caliber pistol loaded with five rounds of ammunition in a waistband holster. Canty approached D, possibly with Allen beside him, and stated: 'give me five dollars.' Neither Canty nor any of the other youths displayed a weapon. D stood up, pulled out his handgun and fired four shots in rapid succession. The first shot hit Canty in the chest; the second struck Allen in the back; the third went through Ramseur's arm and into his left side; the fourth was fired at Cabey, but missed. D briefly surveyed the scene around him, then fired another shot at Cabey, who then was sitting on the end bench of the car. The bullet entered the rear of Cabey's side and severed his spinal cord. D told the conductor that the four youths had tried to rob him. D eventually jumped onto the tracks and fled. Police and ambulance crews arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. D surrendered to police in Concord, New Hampshire nine days later. D admitted that he had been illegally carrying a handgun in New York City for three years. D first purchased a gun in 1981 after he had been injured in a mugging. D also revealed that twice between 1981 and 1984 he had successfully warded off assailants simply by displaying the pistol. D was certain that none of the youths had a gun, but he had a fear, based on prior experiences, of being 'maimed.' D recalled that the first two he shot 'tried to run through the crowd [but] they had nowhere to run.' The third tried to run through the wall of the train, and the fourth tried pretending that he wasn't with [the others]' by standing still, holding onto one of the subway hand straps, and not looking at D. D nonetheless fired his fourth shot at him. D then checked each of the youths, and it seemed that one was unhurt, so he then fired a shot which severed Cabey's spinal cord. D also admitted that if he had had more bullets, he would have shot them again, and again, and again. D was eventually arraigned on a felony complaint charging him with attempted murder and criminal possession of a weapon. The Grand Jury indicted defendant on one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, for possessing the gun used in the subway shootings, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, for possessing two other guns in his apartment building. It dismissed the attempted murder and other charges stemming from the shootings themselves. P then motioned on new evidence to resubmit dismissed charges. The court granted the motion. D was then indicted on four charges of attempted murder, four charges of assault in the first degree, one charge of reckless endangerment in the first degree, and one charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. D moved to dismiss the charges contained in the second indictment. Eventually, the youths admitted they were going to rob D. The prosecutor claimed that this was the first time his office had been told of this alleged statement and that none of the police reports filed on the incident contained any such information. D expanded his motion to dismiss also contending that Ramseur and Canty had committed perjury. All counts were dismissed other than the reckless endangerment charge. The court also held that the prosecutor, in a supplemental charge elaborating upon the justification defense, had erroneously introduced an objective element into a self-defense defense by instructing the grand jurors to consider whether D's conduct was that of a 'reasonable man in D's situation.' The court concluded that the statutory test for whether the use of deadly force is justified to protect a person should be wholly subjective, focusing entirely on the defendant's state of mind when he used such force. It concluded that dismissal was required for this error because the justification issue was at the heart of the case. P appealed. A divided Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the charges. P appealed again. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.