Extreme Emotional Disturbance Affirmative Defense:

• Library: The Rulebook: The Definitive Quick Reference Guide for New York Criminal Law Practitioners (2020 Ed.)

► EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: Pursuant to the Court of Appeals' teaching in People v Gonzalez (22 NY3d 539 [2014]), the extreme emotional disturbance affirmative defense "'serves to reduce the degree of criminal culpability for acts that would otherwise constitute murder' (People v Diaz, 15 NY3d 40, 44-45 [2010]; see Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]). If the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence (see Penal Law § 25.00 [2]) that the homicide was committed while the defendant was 'under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse,' [then] the jury may find the defendant guilty of first-degree manslaughter rather than second-degree murder (id. at § 125.25 [1] [a]; see id. at 125.20 [2]; Diaz, supra)" (Gonzalez, 22 NY3d at 544-545; see Penal Law § 125.27 [2] [a]; People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 561 n 4 [2012]). See entry for PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

Absence of Absolution: "The extreme emotional disturbance [affirmative] defense does not absolve the defendant of criminal responsibility, but allows him/ her 'to demonstrate the existence of mitigating factors which indicate that' he/she should be 'punished less severely' (People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70, 75 [2002]) because the intentional homicide resulted from 'an understandable human response deserving of mercy' (Harris, 95 NY2d at 318)" (People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 561 n 4 [2012]).

Elements: The extreme emotional disturbance affirmative defense has two elements. First, it must be determined that the defendant actually 'acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance' (People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668, 678 [1980]), a subjective determination. Second, there must be 'a reasonable explanation' for the defendant's emotional disturbance...