THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. WALTER WHITE, APPELLANT.
79 N.Y.2d 900, 590 N.E.2d 236, 581 N.Y.S.2d 651 (1992).
February 25, 1992
1 No. 1
Decided February 25, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Mitchell J. Briskey, for Appellant.
Rona Feinberg, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
That court properly concluded, contrary to defendant's contention on
this appeal, that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct
the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance
(PL § 125.25(1)(a)).
In order for defendant to be entitled to such an instruction, a court
must determine that sufficient credible evidence has been presented
for the jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
elements of the affirmative defense have been established (see, People
v Moye, 66 NY2d 887, 890, n 1). The affirmative defense has two
components: an objective element requiring sufficient proof that there
was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance,
and a subjective element requiring sufficient proof that the conduct
was influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance at the time the
alleged crime was committed (see, People v Moye, supra at 889-890;
People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668, 679, cert denied 449 US 842; CPL
125.25(1)(a)). This appeal centers on the second element.
We note initially that defendant's steadfast claim of innocence cannot
defeat his entitlement to the instruction solely because an
affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance would be
inconsistent with an outright denial of involvement in the crime (see,
People v Butts, 72 NY2d 746, 748). Here, however, defendant's repeated
claims of innocence necessarily impacted upon the sufficiency of the
evidence offered to demonstrate that he acted under the influence of
extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the homicide.
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. WALTER WHITE, APPELLANT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
That court properly concluded, contrary to defendant's contention on this appeal, that the
In order for defendant to be entitled to such an instruction, a court must determine that
The affirmative defense has two components: an objective element requiring sufficient proof
We note initially that defendant's steadfast claim of innocence cannot defeat his entitlement
Here, however, defendant's repeated claims of innocence necessarily impacted upon the
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, as we must in considering
However, the second element of this defense cannot be inferred from the provocative act
This record is barren of any statement of defendant or other witnesses, or any other evidence
Defendant concedes that the evidence upon which he relies to support the subjective element
He contends that this post-homicide circumstantial evidence of highly abnormal activity,
Contrary to defendant's contention, neither People v Moye (66 NY2d 887, supra) nor People v
In contrast to the paucity of evidence here, in Moye, defendant's heinous acts, combined with
|
