People v. Luke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Luke

110 A.D.2d 717

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 717 (People v. Luke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Luke, 110 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court properly declined to submit first degree manslaughter to the jury on the theory of “extreme emotional disturbance”, as there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the elements of this affirmative defense were established (see, People v Walker, 64 NY2d 741). Defendant’s testimony had been that he had acted in self-defense against the victim’s attacks; he did not present the defense that he had killed the victim under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, nor was there any testimony supportive of such defense.

With respect to defendant’s argument that the felony murder count was improperly submitted to the jury, we note that defendant was not found guilty of felony murder. In any case, that count was properly submitted, since there was evidence that defendant had demanded money from the victim during the [718]*718course of an attack in which the victim was stabbed 18 times (see, People v Joyner, 26 NY2d 106).

Defendant further contends that he should have been permitted to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior convictions, although he concedes that he had been a total stranger to the victim and had no knowledge of his past. In view of defendant’s lack of awareness of these incidents, the evidence was properly excluded (see, People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543; Matter of Robert S., 52 NY2d 1046).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The trial court properly declined to submit first degree manslaughter to the jury on the theory of “extreme emotional disturbance”, as there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the elements of this affirmative defense were established (see, People v Walker, 64 NY2d 741). Defendant’s testimony had been that he had acted in self-defense against the victim’s attacks; he did not present the defense that he had killed the victim under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, nor was there any testimony supportive of such defense.

With respect to defendant’s argument that the felony murder count was improperly submitted to the jury, we note that defendant was not found guilty of felony murder. In any case, that count was properly submitted, since there was evidence that defendant had demanded money from the victim during the [718]*718course of an attack in which the victim was stabbed 18 times (see, People v Joyner, 26 NY2d 106).

Defendant further contends that he should have been permitted to introduce evidence of the victim’s prior convictions, although he concedes that he had been a total stranger to the victim and had no knowledge of his past. In view of defendant’s lack of awareness of these incidents, the evidence was properly excluded (see, People v Miller, 39 NY2d 543; Matter of Robert S., 52 NY2d 1046).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luke-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack