THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. BRUCE WOOD, APPELLANT.
79 N.Y.2d 958, 591 N.E.2d 1178, 582 N.Y.S.2d 992 (1992).
April 2, 1992
2 No. 53
Decided April 2, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
David Steinberg, for Appellant.
Alfred T. Tallakson, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of murdering a female acquaintance during
the early morning hours of March 8, 1979. The two had met in a bar
earlier in the night and returned to the victim's apartment. After
consensual sexual relations defendant struck the victim on the head
repeatedly with a heavy glass bottle filled with pennies and then
strangled her to death with a brassiere. At trial, the defendant
asserted the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance,
admitting that he had killed the victim but requesting a jury verdict
of manslaughter instead of murder (see, Penal Law § 125.25(1)(a)). On
this appeal, he contends that because he did not actively contest the
People's version of the facts, the Trial Court committed reversible
error and deprived him of a fair trial by admitting into evidence
several photographs and color slides of the victim and the crime
scene.
The general rule is stated in People v Pobliner (32 NY2d 356, 369; see
also, People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833): photographs are admissible if
they tend "to prove or disprove a disputed or material issue, to
illustrate or elucidate other relevant evidence, or to corroborate or
disprove some evidence offered or to be offered." They should be
excluded "only if (their) sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of
the jury and to prejudice the defendant" (People v Pobliner, supra, at
370 (emphasis added)).
The nature and manner of the killing was material and relevant to
prosecution of the murder indictment and the defendant could not make
it otherwise by admitting that he had killed the victim but contending
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. BRUCE WOOD, APPELLANT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
After consensual sexual relations defendant struck the victim on the head repeatedly with a
At trial, the defendant asserted the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance,
On this appeal, he contends that because he did not actively contest the People's version of
The general rule is stated in People v Pobliner (32 NY2d 356, 369; see also, People v
They should be excluded "only if sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to
The nature and manner of the killing was material and relevant to prosecution of the murder
The questioned exhibits illustrated the severity and calculated nature of the wounds and
Inasmuch as the exhibits were related to material issues in the case, we find no error in
Moreover, contrary to the dissent, the photographs and slides should not have been excluded
Here, however, the Trial Court concluded that each exhibit was relevant and necessary to
"When relevance is demonstrated, the question as to whether on balance the jury should be
I cannot agree with my colleagues in the majority that defendant's constitutional right to a
Judge Titone dissents and votes to reverse in an opinion in which Judge Kaye concurs.
|
