- 11,809
- 643
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
There was evidence adduced at trial that the 16-year-old defendant(girl in the photo) and a co-defendant went to the home of the 71-year-old victim with the specific intent to rob him, then choked and suffocated him to death and stole his automobile. Defendant sought to establish that she was under an extreme emotional disturbance because of her sexual relationship with the deceased over a period of months and his sexual advances on the night of the killing. She argued that her own testimony and that of other lay persons, but no expert psychiatric evidence, was sufficient to establish her extreme emotional disturbance. The trial court sustained the People's objection to such testimony because of defendant's failure to provide pretrial notice pursuant to CPL 250.10(2). The Appellate Division affirmed without deciding whether notice should have been required, concluding that defendant would not have been entitled to a charge on extreme emotional disturbance in any event.
Earliest Release Date:10/21/2023