In People v. McManus (67 NY2d 541) the Court of Appeals stated, "In sum, in a prosecution for depraved indifference murder, or another crime involving the use of force, a charge on justification is warranted whenever there is evidence to support it ... and, if any reasonable view of the evidence would permit the fact finder to decide that the conduct of the accused was justified, an instruction on the defense should be given." The Court of Appeals noted that it had previously rejected a restrictive application of self-defense, and, instead, has permitted the defense to be raised against diverse charges involving the use of force, regardless of the relevant mens rea, including reckless conduct ( People v. McManus, supra, at 547.) In McManus (supra), the Court of Appeals reiterated its decision in People v. Huntley that self-defense is applicable to a charge of reckless homicide (Penal Law 125.15 [1]). The Court of Appeals has held that "a defendant is entitled to a charge 'that his conduct might not have been criminal under the circumstances', whenever the defendant claims that 'he engaged in [forceful] conduct in avoidance of a perceived attack' " (People v. McManus, supra, at 547.) Penal Law 35.15 "does not operate to excuse a criminal act, nor does it negate a particular element of a crime. Rather, by recognizing the use of force to be privileged under certain circumstances, it renders such conduct entirely lawful" ( People v. McManus, supra, at 546.)