People v. Merkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Merkel

177 A.D.2d 981, 578 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15725

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 177 A.D.2d 981 (People v. Merkel) 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. Merkel, 177 A.D.2d 981, 578 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly received in evidence the statement made by defendant at the hospital when he learned of the victim’s death. In a trial for depraved indifference murder, the emotional state of a defendant is not admis[982]*982sible on the issue of whether the defendant acted under circumstances evincing depraved indifference to human life because that issue must be determined by an objective standard. Defendant’s emotional state may be relevant, however, to show his subjective awareness of the risk, an element essential to establish the mens rea of recklessness (People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, 27, n 7). Here, evidence of defendant’s emotional state was admissible because the issue of whether defendant’s conduct was reckless was in dispute. Moreover, any error in admitting that testimony was harmless. The proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and there was no probability that, had the statement been excluded, the result would have been more favorable to defendant (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and we conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court properly received in evidence the statement made by defendant at the hospital when he learned of the victim’s death. In a trial for depraved indifference murder, the emotional state of a defendant is not admis[982]*982sible on the issue of whether the defendant acted under circumstances evincing depraved indifference to human life because that issue must be determined by an objective standard. Defendant’s emotional state may be relevant, however, to show his subjective awareness of the risk, an element essential to establish the mens rea of recklessness (People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, 27, n 7). Here, evidence of defendant’s emotional state was admissible because the issue of whether defendant’s conduct was reckless was in dispute. Moreover, any error in admitting that testimony was harmless. The proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and there was no probability that, had the statement been excluded, the result would have been more favorable to defendant (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and we conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 981, 578 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-merkel-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack