PEOPLE v. GENTILE (2005)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ) and assault in the first degree (§ 120.10[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on the defense of justification (§ 35.15[1] ).   We conclude that the court properly denied that request.  “The rule is that the jury must be instructed on all claimed defenses which are supported by a reasonable view of the evidence-not by any view of the evidence, however artificial or irrational” (People v. Butts, 72 N.Y.2d 746, 750, 536 N.Y.S.2d 730, 533 N.E.2d 660;  see People v. Odinga, 143 A.D.2d 202, 204, 531 N.Y.S.2d 818, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 853, 858, 537 N.Y.S.2d 500, 505, 534 N.E.2d 338, 343;  see also People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202;  People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188).   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant (see People v. Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816, 818, 537 N.Y.S.2d 113, 534 N.E.2d 30;  McManus, 67 N.Y.2d at 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202), we conclude that there is no reasonable view of the evidence to support the defense of justification (see generally Watts, 57 N.Y.2d at 301, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188).

 We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to pursue the defenses of insanity and intoxication.   Where, as here, those defenses would be inconsistent with the defense advanced by defense counsel, i.e., that defendant was justified in his actions (see e.g. People v. Baptiste, 306 A.D.2d 562, 569-570, 760 N.Y.S.2d 594, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 594, 776 N.Y.S.2d 226, 808 N.E.2d 362;  People v. Rizzo, 301 A.D.2d 682, 683, 753 N.Y.S.2d 194, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 631, 760 N.Y.S.2d 113, 790 N.E.2d 287), we will not “second-guess whether [the] course chosen by defendant's counsel was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation” (People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799-800, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834).   We conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: