LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

THE PEOPLE &C. v RAMON ROCHE Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: THE PEOPLE &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I02_0063, Emotional Disturbance, Extreme Emotional Disturbance, Charge, Evidence, Defense, Apartment, Wife, Police, Ny2d, Request, Murder, Mental Infirmity, Manslaughter Charge, Victim, Franco, Affirmative Defense, Support, Jury, Appellate Division, Loss, Bell, Crime, Conviction, Reverse, Stabbing, Brutality, Homicide, Wounds, Respondent , ContentID: 120254602

Case Documents
1 1991-12 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 131606
7 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 7 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE
EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE
CHARGE
EVIDENCE
DEFENSE
APARTMENT
WIFE
POLICE
NY2D
REQUEST
MURDER
MENTAL INFIRMITY
MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE
VICTIM
FRANCO
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SUPPORT
JURY
APPELLATE DIVISION
LOSS
BELL
CRIME
CONVICTION
REVERSE
STABBING
BRUTALITY
HOMICIDE
WOUNDS
RESPONDENT


   1 No. 78
   The People &c.,
   Appellant,
   v.
   Ramon Roche,
   Respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 63

   June 4, 2002

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Sheryl Feldman, for appellant.
   Eunice C. Lee, for respondent.
   Sanctuary For Families' Center for Battered Women's Legal Sevices et
   al., amicus curiæ.
     _________________________________________________________________

   GRAFFEO, J.:

   In this prosecution stemming from the brutal stabbing by defendant of
   his common-law wife, the Appellate Division reversed defendant's
   conviction of murder in the second degree based on the trial court's
   failure to charge the jury concerning the affirmative defense of
   extreme emotional disturbance. Because the evidence at trial was
   insufficient to support the defense of extreme emotional disturbance,
   we reverse the Appellate Division order and reinstate defendant's
   conviction.

   Defendant was charged with murder in the second degree based on the
   December 1991 stabbing death of Lillian Rivera in the Manhattan
   apartment they shared. He was convicted of murder in the second degree
   at his first trial, at which he neither requested nor received an
   extreme emotional disturbance charge. The conviction was reversed on
   appeal due to an improper Allen charge and the case was remitted for
   retrial (see 239 AD2d 270).

   At the second trial, the People offered proof that the victim was
   stabbed 12 to 14 times in the face, back and chest. She was discovered
   lying face up on the kitchen floor of the blood-spattered apartment. A
   trail of blood on the furniture, walls and floors throughout the
   living room, hallway and kitchen suggested a violent struggle.
   Forensic evidence indicated the two deep, and ultimately fatal, stab
SNIPPETS:
  • The People &c., Appellant, v. Ramon Roche, Respondent.
  • In this prosecution stemming from the brutal stabbing by defendant of his common-law wife,
  • Because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the defense of extreme emotional
  • Defendant was charged with murder in the second degree based on the December 1991 stabbing
  • Forensic evidence indicated the two deep, and ultimately fatal, stab wounds to the victim's
  • Gilberto Franco and Norma Ruiz, tenants in the apartment building who were acquainted with
  • They opened their door and saw defendant running down the stairs, exclaiming that his wife
  • According to the testimony of Phillip Bell, defendant soon arrived at an apartment in the
  • The thrust of the defense was that the police had the "wrong man" and had rushed to judgment
  • Defense counsel stated that a manslaughter charge "may not in fact be supported by the
  • these statutes provide that a defendant who proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he
  • As we recently observed in People v Harris (quoting Casassa, 49 NY2d at 680-681) ), the
  • A defendant cannot establish an extreme emotional disturbance defense without evidence that
  • This is so because violence and brutality are not necessarily indicative of a loss of
  •    |