People v. White, 73 N.Y.2d 469 (1989)
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance when sufficient evidence is presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, that would allow a jury to find the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance with a reasonable explanation or excuse.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. The Court reasoned that, under the specific circumstances and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was sufficient evidence presented to create a jury question as to whether the defendant was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance. The Court also held that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in failing to remit the case for resentencing.
Facts
The defendant was charged with attempted murder and raised the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. At trial, the defendant presented evidence concerning his subjective state and the external circumstances as he perceived them. The specific facts contributing to the claim of extreme emotional disturbance are not detailed in this memorandum opinion.
Procedural History
The defendant requested a jury charge on extreme emotional disturbance, which the trial court denied. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the charge should have been given. The People appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing the defense was inapplicable to attempted murder. The defendant cross-appealed the Appellate Division’s failure to remit the case for resentencing.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the People preserved the argument that the defense of extreme emotional disturbance is inapplicable to attempted murder for appellate review.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance.
3. Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in failing to remit the case for resentencing.
Holding
1. No, because the People did not argue against the charge on extreme emotional disturbance based on its inapplicability to attempted murder at the trial level.
2. Yes, because under the circumstances and viewing the evidence favorably to the defendant, there was enough evidence to present a jury question on whether the defendant was acting under extreme emotional disturbance.
3. No, because under the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Division’s decision not to remit for resentencing was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals first addressed the People’s argument that the defense of extreme emotional disturbance is inapplicable to attempted murder, finding that this argument was not preserved for appellate review because it was not raised at trial. Citing People v. Villani, the Court reiterated that issues not raised at the trial level are generally waived on appeal.
Regarding the trial court’s refusal to charge the jury on extreme emotional disturbance, the Court emphasized the standard for determining the sufficiency of the evidence. It cited People v. Casassa, stating that the assessment requires consideration of “the subjective, internal situation in which defendant found himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them at the time.” The Court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant (as required by People v. Moye), concluded that the evidence presented a jury question on the defense.
Finally, the Court addressed the defendant’s cross-appeal concerning resentencing, holding that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion. The Court cited People v. Cohen, indicating that the decision to remit for resentencing is generally discretionary.