## Facts

- Around 3:00 p.m. on a public street in Brooklyn, New York, Giro Ligouri and William Panaro shot and killed Nicholas Cosaluzzo.
- Ligouri admitted at trial that he fired the fatal shot, but claimed he acted in self-defense because Cosaluzzo had a gun pointed at him.
- The prosecution proceeded on the theory that both Ligouri and Panaro were responsible for the homicide, and they were tried together.
- Defendants were indicted for first-degree murder.
- At the close of the evidence, Ligouri asked the trial court to instruct the jury that a person who is feloniously attacked has no obligation to retreat and may stand his ground and, if necessary, kill the attacker.
- The trial judge refused that request and instead instructed the jury that a person under attack must retreat “as far as possible,” unless the person believes he is in such imminent danger of irreparable injury that the only option is to use deadly force, and that the person may use no more force than necessary.
- The jury found both defendants guilty of second-degree murder.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, and the New York Court of Appeals granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether, when the evidence could support a finding that the deceased was making a felonious attack, the trial court erred by refusing to charge that the defendant had no duty to retreat and could stand his ground under New York’s justifiable-homicide statute.
2. Whether the retreat-focused self-defense instruction was prejudicial error requiring reversal of the second-degree murder convictions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgments of conviction and ordered a new trial.
- The court held the jury instructions improperly emphasized a general duty to retreat and failed to give the requested instruction applicable to resistance to a felonious attack.
- Because self-defense was a main disputed issue for the homicide, the erroneous charge was not treated as harmless.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York Penal Law § 1055(2) (as then in force), a person confronted with a felonious attack may stand his ground and, if necessary, use deadly force; the law does not impose a general duty to retreat in that setting.
- Penal Law § 1055 distinguished between (a) situations where retreat may be required if safely possible and (b) felonious aggression, where retreat is not required.
- A defendant is entitled to a requested self-defense instruction when there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports it; in deciding whether to give the charge, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant on that request.
- When the court’s instructions on self-defense misstate the applicable rule on retreat and thereby restrict the jury’s consideration of a supported defense theory, the error requires reversal and a new trial.

## Conclusion

People v. Ligouri reversed second-degree murder convictions because the trial court charged the jury with an expansive duty to retreat and refused to instruct that, if the jury found a felonious attack, New York law permitted the defendant to stand his ground and use deadly force if necessary; the instructional error warranted a new trial.


People v. Ligouri, 31 N.E.2d 37 (1940)