“Pursuit, Retreat & the Unavailable Justification:
People v. Marin (2025) Re-defines the Boundaries of Self-Defense and Weapon Possession in New York”

1. Introduction

Court & Date: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Department – 5 June 2025.
Parties: The People of the State of New York (Respondent) v. Victor Marin a/k/a “Pito Hulk” (Appellant).
Backdrop: In September 2017 a street confrontation in Schenectady escalated into gunfire. Victor Marin, claiming self-defense, shot at Israel Grimes but struck a by-stander (“the victim”) and endangered an infant in a stroller. A jury acquitted him of attempted murder but convicted him of:

• Assault in the first degree (victim wounded)
• Attempted assault in the first degree (aimed at Grimes)
• Two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree
• Endangering the welfare of a child

Sentenced as a second violent felony offender to an aggregate 20-year term, Marin appealed on evidentiary and justification grounds. The Third Department unanimously affirmed, crafting a refined framework for:

1. When a defender “loses” the shield of justification during a pursuit;
2. How retreat opportunities negate the defense;
3. The continuing New York rule that justification is never a defense to mere firearm possession; and
4. The evidentiary threshold for “serious physical injury” and child-endangerment in shooting cases.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The appellate court held:

1. Weight-of-evidence review supported all convictions. Although Marin had some basis to fear Grimes, the video proved Marin pursued Grimes, could have retreated safely, and fired when Grimes’s back was turned. Therefore, the jury properly rejected justification.
2. The victim’s multi-fragmented leg fracture, 10+ surgeries, lingering pain, limp, and significant chance of permanent impairment constituted “serious physical injury.”
3. Marin’s gunfire placed the infant in objectively foreseeable danger; thus, the child-endangerment conviction stood.
4. Under long-standing precedent, justification is categorically unavailable to the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
5. All procedural objections (legal-sufficiency) were unpreserved; nevertheless, the court reviewed them in its weight analysis and found no merit.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• People v. Castillo, 42 NY3d 628 (2024) – Core precedent. Castillo held that a person initially justified in using deadly force loses that justification once the perceived aggressor no longer poses an imminent threat. Marin borrows Castillo’s language (“a defendant … loses the right at the point he can no longer reasonably believe the assailant still poses a threat”) to evaluate Marin’s pursuit of a retreating Grimes.
• People v. Wilkins, 216 AD3d 1359 (3d Dept 2023) – Cited for the modern statement of the retreat requirement and for measuring reasonableness from the actor’s perspective.
• People v. Harris, 206 AD3d 1063 (3d Dept 2022) – Provided the test that the People must disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt once the defense is raised.
• People v. Decamp (2022), Cutting (2022), Warner (2021) – Each upheld convictions where defendants armed themselves and advanced on perceived aggressors instead of retreating. The Marin panel relied on these cases for fact-pattern similarity: voluntary re-engagement + shooting at a turning or fleeing opponent.
• People v. Graham, 215 AD3d 998 (3d Dept 2023) – Restated the absolute bar on a justification defense to weapon-possession charges; cited to reject Marin’s argument under count 5.
• Series of weight-of-evidence and preservation precedents (Tenace, Oates, Osman, Taylor) – Guided the procedural posture: failure to renew a dismissal motion does not bar weight review.
• “Serious physical injury” line – Rice (2011), Casey (2009), with modern updates (Huggins 2025, Fisher 2023, contrasted with Dillon 2024; Marshall 2018). These cases set the continuum of impairment vs. mere injury. Marin sits on the more expansive end, recognizing lengthy therapeutic courses as “protracted impairment.”

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Preservation & Standard of Review – Because Marin did not renew his CPL §290.10 motion, legal-sufficiency claims were unpreserved. The court therefore folded sufficiency into the weight-of-evidence inquiry (the “two-step” method of Taylor).
2. Justification Analysis
   a) Initial Confrontation: The panel acknowledged that seeing a gun in Grimes’s waistband could render fear reasonable.
   b) Opportunity to Retreat: The critical factual pivot: after receiving a gun from an accomplice, Marin chased Grimes several blocks, thereby eliminating the immediacy of the threat and triggering the statutory duty to retreat under Penal Law §35.15(2)(a).
   c) Loss of Justification: Applying Castillo, once Grimes turned away Marin could not reasonably believe deadly force was still necessary.
   d) Transferred Intent: Intent to harm Grimes transferred to the by-stander victim, converting the shot that actually struck the victim into first-degree assault.
3. Serious Physical Injury
   The court gave a granular medical recitation: multiple surgeries, bone gap, long-term limp, 25-50% failure risk. It treated “protracted impairment of health” as a qualitative inquiry, not requiring certainty of permanent disability.
4. Child Endangerment
   Even though the infant was not hit, bullets lodged in a façade on the far side of the street. Objective likelihood of injury + visible flinch by the mother met §260.10(1).
5. Weapon Possession & Justification
   Reaffirmed the absolute bar: “no circumstances” allow self-defense to excuse unlicensed possession with intent to use unlawfully (Penal Law §265.03[1][b]).

3.3 Potential Impact

People v. Marin will reverberate in four principal ways:

• Pursuit Doctrine Clarified – Trial courts now have a sharp appellate blueprint for instructing juries that once a defendant pursues a perceived aggressor, justification evaporates.
• Video Evidence Primacy – The court emphasized multi-angle footage as decisive for showing retreat opportunities and direction of fire; future litigants will focus on surveillance analytics.
• Expanded “Serious Physical Injury” Envelope – Multiple surgeries and lingering limp even without permanent paralysis qualify. This will likely increase charging of first-degree assault in gun cases with orthopedic damage.
• Re-affirmed Weapon-Possession Rule – Any lingering defense bar arguments that Bruen (2022) or Second-Amendment theories impliedly expand justification are foreclosed by Marin’s uncompromising quotation of Graham and Castillo.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Justification (Self-Defense)

A statutory defense under Penal Law §35.15 allowing force if a person reasonably believes it necessary to oppose unlawful force. In deadly-force scenarios, the defender must also show (i) objective reasonableness; (ii) that he was not the initial aggressor; and (iii) inability to retreat safely, unless inside his own dwelling.

Duty to Retreat

Unlike “Stand-your-ground” jurisdictions, New York requires a defender to avoid deadly force if he can retreat “with complete safety.”

Loss of Justification

Even if initially justified, the right disappears once circumstances change—e.g., aggressor withdraws, or defender becomes the pursuer. Marin operationalizes this doctrine.

Transferred Intent

Legal fiction: Intent aimed at one person transfers to an unintended victim. Shooting at A but hitting B still satisfies the “intent” element for assault on B.

Serious Physical Injury

More than “physical injury.” Needs substantial risk of death, protracted impairment, or severe disfigurement. Marin underscores that ongoing treatment and functional limitation—though possibly curable—meet the standard.

Legal Sufficiency vs. Weight of Evidence

“Sufficiency” asks whether any rational juror could convict; “weight” asks whether the appellate court, as a 13th juror, should have acquitted because the proof felt unpersuasive. Failure to preserve sufficiency still invites weight review.

5. Conclusion

People v. Marin polishes New York’s self-defense jurisprudence by combining the high-court retreat analysis of Castillo with vivid street-video evidence and modern medical testimony. Key takeaways:

1. Chasing a perceived aggressor nullifies the right to deadly self-defense;
2. The objectively safe-retreat inquiry is decisive—even if defendant subjectively feels fear;
3. Extensive surgical intervention and protracted healing satisfy “serious physical injury,” supporting top-count assault charges;
4. A child in a foreseeable bullet path establishes endangerment, even absent contact; and
5. Justification can never sanitize unlawful firearm possession, preserving robust gun-control enforcement.

Collectively, the decision fortifies prosecutorial ability to rebut self-defense where defendants turn hunters, not defenders, and signals to trial judges how to craft precise jury instructions on pursuit, retreat, and transferred intent. It also enlarges the doctrinal footprint of “serious physical injury,” encouraging more nuanced consideration of long-term medical trajectories in future assault prosecutions.