People v. Casassa
No Reporter Information Provided (1977)
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance requires proof of both a subjective element, that the defendant acted under the influence of an actual extreme emotional disturbance, and an objective element, that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the disturbance from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Facts:
- In August 1976, Victor Casassa met Victoria Lo Consolo, who lived in the same apartment complex, and they began dating casually.
- In November 1976, Lo Consolo informed Casassa that she was not falling in love with him, which Casassa claimed 'devastated him.'
- Following the rejection, Casassa developed an obsession, breaking into an apartment below Lo Consolo's to eavesdrop and, on another occasion, breaking into her apartment with a knife and lying in her bed.
- On February 28, 1977, Casassa went to Lo Consolo's apartment to offer her gifts of wine and liquor.
- When Lo Consolo rejected his offering, Casassa stabbed her multiple times in the throat with a steak knife he had brought with him.
- Casassa then dragged Lo Consolo's body to the bathroom and submerged it in a bathtub full of water to ensure she was dead.
- The following day, Casassa approached police who were investigating the death at the apartment building and volunteered information, which led to his eventual confession.
Procedural Posture:
- Victor Casassa was indicted for murder in the second degree.
- Casassa's pretrial motions to suppress his confession and other evidence were denied by the trial court (County Court).
- Casassa waived his right to a jury and proceeded with a bench trial before the County Court.
- At trial, Casassa raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.
- The County Court, as trier of fact, rejected the defense and found Casassa guilty of murder in the second degree.
- Casassa, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction without an opinion.
- Casassa, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the affirmative defense of 'extreme emotional disturbance' require an objective assessment of the reasonableness of the defendant's explanation for his emotional state, or is a purely subjective standard, based solely on the defendant's own viewpoint, sufficient to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Jasen, J.
No. The affirmative defense of 'extreme emotional disturbance' is not assessed by a purely subjective standard; it requires an objective assessment of the reasonableness of the explanation for the defendant's emotional state, viewed from the defendant's situation and perspective. The defense has two components: (1) the defendant must have subjectively acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance, and (2) there must have been a reasonable explanation or excuse for this disturbance. The reasonableness of the explanation is not determined from the viewpoint of a wholly objective, reasonable person, but rather from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant perceived them. This hybrid standard allows the fact-finder to consider the defendant's personal situation and beliefs while still applying an objective standard of reasonableness to the explanation for the emotional disturbance itself. In this case, the trial court correctly found that while Casassa may have been disturbed, his emotional reaction to the rejection was so peculiar to him that it could not be considered a reasonable excuse worthy of mitigation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the test for the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in New York, establishing a crucial hybrid standard that incorporates both subjective and objective elements. By requiring that the explanation for the disturbance be 'reasonable' from the defendant's perspective, the court prevents the defense from being applicable to any defendant who experiences a genuine but idiosyncratic or malevolent emotional response. This gives fact-finders significant discretion to distinguish between what they consider an 'understandable human weakness' deserving of mercy and a reaction that is too peculiar to warrant reducing a murder charge. The ruling thus balances providing a mitigating defense broader than the old 'heat of passion' doctrine with the need to maintain an objective check on its application.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Casassa (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"