People v. Delisme

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Bertrand Delisme's assault conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial court should have instructed the jury as a matter of law that a shared bathroom accessible only from the defendant's and complainant's rooms constituted part of the defendant's dwelling, eliminating the duty to retreat under Penal Law § 35.15(2)(a)(i). Two justices dissented, concluding that any instructional error was harmless because the evidence overwhelmingly disproved justification.

Holdings

1. The shared bathroom was part of defendant's dwelling as a matter of law because it was accessible only from defendant's and the complainant's rooms and there was no evidence that strangers had routine access to or use of it.
2. The trial court should have granted defendant's request to instruct the jury that he had no duty to retreat from the shared bathroom as a matter of law, assuming he was not the initial aggressor.
3. The instructional error was not harmless because justification was critically important, the verdict sheet did not reveal the basis for the verdict, and the erroneous instruction affirmatively directed the jury to consider whether defendant had a duty to retreat.
4. The court declined to review defendant's pro se speedy-trial arguments because they were unpreserved and unreviewable on the insufficient record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a bathroom shared by defendant and the complainant, accessible only from their respective rooms and not routinely accessible to strangers, constituted part of defendant's dwelling under Penal Law § 35.15(2)(a)(i).
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that defendant had no duty to retreat from the shared bathroom as a matter of law.
3. Whether the erroneous justification instruction was harmless.
4. Whether defendant's pro se speedy-trial arguments were reviewable.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded