People v. Tabarez

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Tabarez

503 N.E.2d 1369, 69 N.Y.2d 663, 511 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21265

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 503 N.E.2d 1369 (People v. Tabarez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Tabarez, 503 N.E.2d 1369, 69 N.Y.2d 663, 511 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21265 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[665]*665OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The People did not argue in opposition to defendant’s request for a charge on extreme emotional disturbance that such a defense is inapplicable to attempted murder and, therefore, have not preserved the issue for review (People v Villani, 59 NY2d 781, 783-784).

The sufficiency of the evidence to present a jury question concerning whether defendant was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (Penal Law § 125.27 [2] [a]) and whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for such disturbance requires assessment of “the subjective, internal situation in which defendant found himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them at the time” (People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668, 679). Under the unusual circumstances of this case and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (People v Moye, 66 NY2d 887, 889), we conclude that it was error to refuse to charge the defense.

Defendant cross-appeals, by leave, from the Appellate Division’s failure to remit for resentence. Under the circumstances of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law for it not to do so (cf. People v Cohen, 50 NY2d 908).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

[665]*665OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The People did not argue in opposition to defendant’s request for a charge on extreme emotional disturbance that such a defense is inapplicable to attempted murder and, therefore, have not preserved the issue for review (People v Villani, 59 NY2d 781, 783-784).

The sufficiency of the evidence to present a jury question concerning whether defendant was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (Penal Law § 125.27 [2] [a]) and whether there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for such disturbance requires assessment of “the subjective, internal situation in which defendant found himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them at the time” (People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668, 679). Under the unusual circumstances of this case and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (People v Moye, 66 NY2d 887, 889), we conclude that it was error to refuse to charge the defense.

Defendant cross-appeals, by leave, from the Appellate Division’s failure to remit for resentence. Under the circumstances of this case, it was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law for it not to do so (cf. People v Cohen, 50 NY2d 908).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 N.E.2d 1369, 69 N.Y.2d 663, 511 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 21265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tabarez-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack