The People of the State of New York v. Enrique Scott, Defendant. (2026)

The defendant is charged with Murder in the Second Degree under two theories: intentional murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). The defendant, through his attorney, has raised the possibility that he will claim that he was justified in the actions that resulted in the death of Anthony Williams.

The People contend that the defense of justification (Penal Law § 35.15) cannot be raised against the felony murder charge. The defendant has submitted a memorandum of law seeking a ruling on the People's position.

Based upon the research done by the Court, it finds that the People are correct. Justification cannot be raised as a defense to a felony murder charge.

An oral decision to this effect was previously announced in court.

The Arguments of Counsel

The defendant contends that the holding in People v McManus (67 NY2d 541 [1986]) is controlling and would allow the justification defense to be asserted in this felony murder case. The defendant's reliance on McManus, based upon the cases already noted, is misplaced because the ruling in McManus deals with the propriety of the justification defense for reckless conduct.

In McManus, the defendant was charged with intentional murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). The trial court refused a request to charge the jury on the defense of justification for the depraved indifference murder charge. This decision was upheld by the appellate court (People v McManus, 108 AD2d 474 [2d Dept 1985]), but overruled by the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals noted that it had already decided that the justification defense was not limited to crimes involving intentional conduct. It reasoned that since it had already ruled in People v Huntley, 59 NY2d 868 [1983] that the justification defense could be asserted as a defense to a charge of reckless manslaughter (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]), it followed that the justification charge could also be asserted as a defense to the charge of depraved indifference murder, because depraved indifference murder and reckless manslaughter each involved the same mens rea of recklessness.

The defendant in this case is not charged with reckless murder, so to that extent, the holding in McManus is not on point.

Similarly, the People's reliance on People v Pons (68 NY2d 264 [1986]) is also misplaced. Pons did not deal with a felony murder charge. In Pons, the justification charge was given by the trial court for a charge of intentional murder, for which the defendant was acquitted, but not for a charge involving the criminal possession of the weapon used to cause the death. The holding in Pons is very specific. The court held that "because possession of a weapon does not involve the use of physical force, there are no circumstances when justification (Penal Law § 35.15) can be a defense to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon (Pons, 267) (internal citation omitted). Pons did not address the propriety of the justification defense for a felony murder charge in any way.

THE LAW

"[A] justification charge is not available in a prosecution for felony murder" (People v Nunes, 168 AD3d 1187 [3d Dept 2019], citing People v Walker, 78 AD3d 63 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 956 [2010]); "Justification has no application" to the offense of felony murder (People v Joseph, 236 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2025]). The reasoning as to why justification is not available as a defense to a felony murder charge is explained in Walker, and summarized in Cornelius v Cuomo, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 151161* (SD NY 2015) - "having created a potentially life threatening situation, the defendant forfeits the right to use deadly physical force against the victim or any rescuer" (Cornelius, citing Walker, at 68). "The purpose of the felony murder statute is to punish a felon for killing a victim when the mortal danger arises from his or her commission of an enumerated felony, even when the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, a justification charge as to felony murder itself would directly undermine the legislative purpose of the statute" (Walker, 71); for that matter, if the defendant is committing one of the underlying designated felony murder crimes, he is still culpable, and the justification defense is not available, even if he is not the initial aggressor (People v Guraj, 105 Misc 2d 176 [Sup Ct NY County 1980]; People v Walker, 78 AD3d 63 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 956 [2010]; People v Ellison, 175 Ad2d 846 [2d Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 856 [1992], writ denied Ellison v Hoke, 1995 US Dist LEXIS 22227 [ED NY 1995]; Cornelius v Cuomo, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 151161* [SD NY 2015]).

Additionally, justification is generally not available as a defense to a burglary charge (People v Fontaine, 105 AD2d 710 [2d Dept 1984], lv denied 64 NY2d 780 [1985]; People v Bess, 107 AD2d 844 [3d Dept 1985]: People v Saylor, 173 AD3d 1489 [3d Dept 2019]; People v LaPetina, 34 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2006], affd 9 NY3d 854 [2007]).

CONCLUSION

The case law and logic are clear that the justification defense is not applicable to a charge of felony murder.

Accordingly, the jury will not be charged on the defense of justification with regard to the charge of felony murder.

This constitutes the decision of the Court.

Dated: June 19, 2026

Staten Island, New York

Hon. Mario F. Mattei

Justice of the Supreme Court

Mario F. Mattei, J.