Case Analysis on reasonableness of extreme emotional disturbance PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Law I Lecture Notes; Casebook Notes Included (author: Kadish 9th edition)...

Description

Criminal Law I! Professor Klein! Spring 2019!

People v. Casassa ISSUE: Did the trial court err in failing to afford the defendant the benefit of the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance? In a broader sense, do all mental infirmities constitute extreme emotional disturbance within the meaning of the statute? FACTS: The defendant, Victor Casassa, became obsessed with his victim, Victoria Lo Consolo, after she rejected him. On several occasions ha broke into her apartment and on the last visit, he brought the victim a gift, which she refused. Upon her refusal, the defendant stabbed the victim and submerged her in a bathtub to make sure that she was in fact dead. The defendant was charged with second-degree murder and did not contest the facts of the crime. The sole issue presented to the trial court was whether the defendant, at the time of the killing, had acted under the influence of “extreme emotional disturbance” thereby warranting a reduction from second degree murder to manslaughter. At trial, the court held that the defendant’s emotional reaction at the time of the commission of the crime was so peculiar to him that it could not be considered reasonable and therefore did not show adequate provocation. The defendant appeals. DEFENDANT’S POSITION: A psychiatrist testified that the defendant’s deteriorating relationship with the victim had caused the defendant to act under the influence of extreme emotional distress. PROSECUTIONS POSITION: The state presented witnesses who testified that the defendant was not under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance within the meaning of the penal law, which provides that “it is an affirmative defense to the crime of murder in the second degree where the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse”, because his disturbed state was not the product of external factors but rather created from within himself. HOLDING: No. Judgment affirmed.

RULE OF LAW: The reasonableness of extreme emotional disturbance must be determined from the point of view of a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. REASONING: Section 125.25 of the Penal Law, which provides that “it is an affirmative defense to the crime of murder in the second degree where the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse”, allows but does not require the fact finder the opportunity to find mitigation only upon a finding of extreme emotional disturbance. According the comments to the Model Penal Code, the defense of extreme emotional disturbance has two main components. First, the particular defendant must have acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance. Second, there must have been a reasonable explanation or excuse for such emotional disturbance. Reasonableness should be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Teacher’s Notes on Casassa: Should the jury use the subjective standard or an objective standard to determine if someone acted with extreme emotional disturbance? NY Court of Appeals says there is a hybrid standard. Two prong test: Did the defendant act under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, and was there a valid reason for why a defendant was extremely emotionally disturbed. Depraved indifference murder- the defendant did the act that caused the death of the deceased, but did not intend to kill the defendant. Typically, people charged with this crime are seen as “evil.” Example: Nassau County. 23 three year old man was heavily intoxicated, got behind the wheel of a car, and hit a limousine head-on on the Meadowbrook Parkway. In this case, the defendant was sentenced to 17 years to life. Murder in the 2nd Degree- 125.25 (1).

First rule: What does intent mean? Determined to do something. Does it differ from premeditation? In New York, premeditation is irrelevant. What matters is, at the time the defendant acted, did he intend to cause the act. Second issue: Let’s look at extreme emotional disturbance? Do you have to be emotionally disturbed immediately after an event? No, there is no time requirement. For example, sometimes our anger increases with time. Ex: A man’s daughter is raped and acquitted. The father’s anger can increase with time until he decides to act....