Opinion
August 19, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Pano Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant's contention that the People failed to disprove the defense of justification to the reckless endangerment charge beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 35.20; see generally, People v Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555; People v Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96). The contents of the defendant's written statement to the police, which the People introduced into evidence, were sufficient as a matter of law to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether her actions were justified. Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the handgun with the intent to use it unlawfully against another (see, People v Tejada, 101 A.D.2d 757).
We have examined the contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief. To the extent that the contentions can be reviewed on this record, we find that they do not warrant a reversal of her conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Bracken, J.P., Harwood, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.