People v. Davis
530 N.Y.S.2d 529, 526 N.E.2d 20, 72 N.Y.2d 32 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person cannot be found guilty of first-degree reckless endangerment for pointing a gun and pulling the trigger if, at that moment, the weapon is factually inoperable due to a jam. The crime requires the creation of an actual, not merely apparent, grave risk of death, and factual impossibility eliminates that essential element of risk.
Facts:
- Defendant and another man confronted Ian Shillingford and demanded money.
- During a scuffle, defendant produced a pistol, which he then dropped.
- The pistol discharged upon hitting the ground.
- After Shillingford escaped, police officers arrived and began to pursue the defendant.
- Defendant stopped, turned, assumed a 'combat stance,' and pointed the pistol at the officers' patrol car.
- Defendant pulled the trigger, but the gun did not fire.
- The weapon was inoperable at that moment because a spent shell casing had not been ejected and was jammed in the chamber.
- Defendant continued to flee on foot and again pointed the weapon at the pursuing officers before he was shot and apprehended.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged in a trial court with offenses including first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
- At his bench trial, the defendant's motion to dismiss the weapon possession count as duplicitous was denied.
- The trial court convicted the defendant of one count of first-degree reckless endangerment and one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
- Defendant appealed his convictions to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reversing the reckless endangerment conviction for insufficient evidence but affirming the weapon possession conviction.
- The People, as appellant, appealed the reversal of the reckless endangerment conviction, and the defendant, as cross-appellant, appealed the affirmation of the weapon possession conviction to the Court of Appeals of New York.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger create a 'grave risk of death' sufficient to constitute first-degree reckless endangerment when the gun is inoperable at that moment due to a jammed cartridge?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No. Pointing an inoperable gun at another and pulling the trigger does not create a 'grave risk of death' as required by the reckless endangerment statute. Reckless endangerment is not an intent crime; it requires an objective assessment of the actual degree of risk created by the defendant's conduct. The statute punishes the creation of a tangible risk, not a particular outcome or a defendant's subjective intent. Because the gun was jammed and factually impossible to fire, the defendant's conduct could not have created the grave risk of death essential for a conviction. Factual impossibility, while not a defense to an attempt crime based on intent, negates the element of actual risk required for a recklessness crime.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Bellacosa, J.
Yes. The defendant's conduct of pointing a recently-fired, loaded weapon at police and pulling the trigger created a grave risk of death sufficient for a reckless endangerment conviction. The majority's analysis freezes the action in a single moment, ignoring the overall context. The gun was generally operable, had just discharged, and could have become operable again with a simple jarring action or another pull of the trigger. The officers perceived a grave risk, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime were met. The fact that the gun fortuitously failed to fire at that specific instant does not negate the grave risk that was present throughout the encounter.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'grave risk of death' element for reckless endangerment in New York, establishing that the risk must be actual and objectively present, not merely apparent or intended. By applying a factual impossibility analysis, the court distinguishes recklessness crimes, which hinge on the creation of a real risk, from attempt crimes, where intent is the key factor and impossibility is not a defense. This ruling narrows the scope of the reckless endangerment statute by requiring prosecutors to prove a weapon was actually capable of causing harm at the moment of the alleged crime, impacting how such cases are charged and proven.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Davis