## Facts

- Lydell Harris and the victim, Larry Amorose, were long-time friends.
- Harris was dating Monique Lloyd, who had previously been unfaithful with Amorose and had left Harris for Amorose at one point.
- On the day of the killing, Amorose taunted Harris in crude terms, boasting about his ability to have sex with Lloyd and suggesting she would leave Harris again.
- Harris testified that he “completely lost control,” repeatedly attacked Amorose, and could not stop himself.
- Harris killed Amorose with a machete and, with Lloyd’s assistance, decapitated and dismembered the body, placed the parts in garbage bags, and disposed of them in the ocean off Coney Island.
- Harris later confessed to police and described the episode as feeling like he was “watching a movie” and lacked control over his actions.
- At trial, Harris testified about his intense emotional reaction after the killing (including crying and vomiting).
- A defense psychiatric expert testified that Harris met New York’s legal criteria for extreme emotional disturbance (EED).
- The trial court refused to instruct the jury on EED, and Harris was convicted of second-degree intentional murder; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the defendant, was sufficient to require a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in a second-degree murder prosecution.
2. Whether the trial court improperly invaded the jury’s role by refusing to submit EED based on its assessment of the adequacy or reasonableness of the proof.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
- The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on EED.
- The court remitted the case for a new trial at which the jury would be instructed on EED.

## Legal Principles

- Extreme emotional disturbance is an affirmative defense to second-degree murder that, if proved by a preponderance of the evidence, mitigates liability to first-degree manslaughter.
- The defense requires proof that the defendant acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance and that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, assessed from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
- A trial court’s role in deciding whether to give an EED instruction is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find the defense established by a preponderance; the court should not weigh credibility or choose among competing inferences.
- EED is not confined to traditional “heat of passion” provocation; it may apply across a broad range of circumstances where the factfinder could reasonably find mitigation warranted.
- Brutality of the homicide and post-homicide conduct does not, as a matter of law, foreclose submission of EED when there is evidentiary support for the defense.

## Conclusion

Because Harris presented lay testimony and psychiatric expert evidence that could permit a rational jury to find EED by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court was required to instruct on EED; its refusal warranted reversal and a new trial.


People v. Harris, 95 N.Y.2d 316, 740 N.E.2d 227 (N.Y. 2000)