People v. White, 79 N.Y.2d 900 (1992)

To be entitled to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, a defendant must present sufficient credible evidence for a jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, both an objective element (reasonable explanation or excuse for the disturbance) and a subjective element (conduct influenced by the disturbance at the time of the crime).

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. While the defendant presented evidence of a tumultuous relationship with his wife (satisfying the objective element), he failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the homicide. The Court emphasized that post-homicide conduct alone is insufficient to establish the necessary subjective element, especially when the defendant maintains his innocence.

Facts

The defendant was accused of killing his wife. He had a history of a violent and tumultuous relationship with her, marked by repeated humiliation. After his wife’s death, he washed her body, wrapped it in a bedspread, and concealed it in a closet in their apartment. The body remained there for a week while the defendant continued his daily routines, including cleaning and cooking for his stepchildren. The defendant steadfastly maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.

Procedural History

The defendant was tried and convicted of a crime related to his wife’s death. At trial, the defendant requested that the jury be instructed on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The trial court refused this request. The Appellate Division affirmed. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant presented sufficient credible evidence to warrant a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, specifically regarding whether his conduct at the time of the homicide was influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance.

Holding

No, because the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the homicide. The evidence presented related solely to post-homicide conduct and was insufficient to establish the necessary element of the affirmative defense.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance has two components: an objective element (reasonable explanation or excuse) and a subjective element (conduct influenced by the disturbance at the time of the crime). The court stated, “In order for defendant to be entitled to such an instruction, a court must determine that sufficient credible evidence has been presented for the jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the elements of the affirmative defense have been established.” While the defendant presented sufficient evidence of a tumultuous relationship to establish the objective element, he failed to demonstrate that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the homicide. The court noted that the “second element of this defense cannot be inferred from the provocative act itself, which occurred weeks before the homicide.” The court distinguished this case from People v. Moye, where the defendant’s statements about his state of mind and the events immediately preceding the killing provided sufficient evidence. Here, the evidence relied upon by the defendant pertained exclusively to his post-homicide conduct. Instructing the jury on the defense, under these circumstances, would have “invite[d] impermissible speculation as to defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing.” The court emphasized the absence of any evidence regarding the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing itself, making any findings on this point purely speculative. The Court made clear that circumstantial evidence of post-homicide conduct is insufficient to establish the required mens rea at the time of the crime.