People
v. Casassa
Court
of Appeals of
49
N.Y.2d 668, 427 N.Y.S.2d 769, 404 N.E.2d 1310.
Dressler,
pp. 256-260
Facts: The defendant’s girlfriend
broke off their relationship. He stalked
and later killed her. In a bench trial,
the defendant argued the partial excuse of extreme emotional distress. The judge found him guilty of murder. The defendant appealed on the basis that he
wasn’t allowed the extreme emotional disturbance defense.
Issue: Did the defendant establish
the “extreme emotional disturbance” defense?
Rule: The
Analysis: The court says that the
statute was properly applied because the trial judge, as the finder of fact,
made an effort to empathize and be understanding of the defendant’s situation.
Conclusion: The court upheld the trial
court’s verdict.
Notes
and Questions
1. The defendant
would have to demonstrate that he acted under extreme emotional disturbance and
that the emotional disturbance was subjectively reasonable. I think he defendant would have to present
evidence that in the milieu of the drug dealer, touching someone’s dinner plate
is an incredibly provocative insult. It
would be very hard to put the fact finder in a drug dealer’s shoes. It would be next to impossible to make a
judge or jury sympathetic to the subjective state of mind of the defendant that
would cause him to kill another drug dealer over some money and a plate.
2. I suppose C
can get the instruction if he makes the case for this excuse in court, but the
jury can only consider the effects of C’s past experiences on his psyche rather
than any political or moral beliefs.
3. According to
the Model Penal Code, that evidence should be permissible, because someone from
a different culture will subjectively experience emotional disturbance
differently.
4. So the Model
Penal Code makes this a broader area of defense with more leeway for the jury.
5. If someone really has some kind of emotional
response that may or may not cause them to commit a crime, why is it important
to have a hard and fast rule and notice?
Why can’t we just go case-by-case?
Special
Bonus Question
Based on the plain language of the statute,