THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JAMES F. BRADLEY, APPELLANT.
88 N.Y.2d 901, 669 N.E.2d 815, 646 N.Y.S.2d 657 (1996).
June 11, 1996
4 No. 83 (1996 NY Int. 130)
Decided June 11, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Terrence M. Connors, for Appellant.
Donna A. Milling, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the
indictment dismissed, without prejudice to an application by the
People for leave to resubmit.
In this prosecution for second-degree murder, the trial court erred
in submitting the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance
over objection by the defense. As we held in People v DeGina (72 NY2d
768, 776), "a defendant * * * has the right to chart his own defense."
That right is infringed when an affirmative defense is submitted over
defense objection and the defendant is thereby prejudiced (id., at
776-777).
Here, defendant asserted the defense of not responsible by reason of
a mental disease or defect (see, former Penal Law § 30.05 (now Penal
Law § 40.15, an affirmative defense)). The specific defense theory was
that defendant suffered from a progressive mental illness which had
worsened in the months preceding the shooting. Defendant took the
position that by the time of the shooting his condition had
deteriorated to the point where his paranoid thought processes
prevented him from appreciating the moral and legal import of his
actions. This position was plainly incompatible with the affirmative
defense of extreme emotional disturbance, which on these facts would
have necessarily involved a temporary loss of control by a person who
was otherwise capable of appreciating the nature and consequences of
his actions.
At the close of the proof, the prosecutor asked the court to submit
first-degree manslaughter, as intentional homicide while acting under
the influence of extreme emotional disturbance. Over defense objection
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Terrence M. Connors, for Appellant.
Donna A. Milling, for Respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed, without
In this prosecution for second-degree murder, the trial court erred in submitting the
That right is infringed when an affirmative defense is submitted over defense objection and
Here, defendant asserted the defense of not responsible by reason of a mental disease or
The specific defense theory was that defendant suffered from a progressive mental illness
Defendant took the position that by the time of the shooting his condition had deteriorated
This position was plainly incompatible with the affirmative defense of extreme emotional
At the close of the proof, the prosecutor asked the court to submit first-degree
Over defense objection the court responded by advising the jury that it should find defendant
In People v DeGina (72 NY2d 768, supra), a narcotics-sale prosecution, the defendant was
As the Court noted in DeGina, the interposition of inconsistent defenses is "a hazardous
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
