People v. Dingley
This text of 366 N.E.2d 877 (People v. Dingley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Memorandum. Of the several issues raised by defendant, one requires a reversal of the conviction and a new trial.
Although the determination at trial, which precluded the introduction of evidence of the victim’s prior specific acts of violence of which the defendant had knowledge, was correct when made, People v Miller (39 NY2d 543) has since changed the rule and requires a reversal here.
As was recognized by the Appellate Division, however, no error was made in the court’s charge on justification. The common-law exception, which made the duty to retreat inapplicable when assault was charged, did not survive the statutory amendment embodied in section 35.15 of the Penal Law.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order reversed and a new trial ordered in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
366 N.E.2d 877, 42 N.Y.2d 888, 397 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dingley-ny-1977.