Facts
- The People of the State of New York charged Walter White with killing his wife in their apartment.
- After the homicide, the wife’s body was wrapped in a bedspread and placed in a closet, where it was discovered about a week later.
- At trial, White testified that his relationship with his wife was violent and emotionally abusive and that she repeatedly humiliated him over several weeks.
- At the close of proof, White asked the trial court to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED), which would reduce murder to manslaughter if proven.
- The trial court refused to give the requested EED instruction.
- The jury convicted White.
- White appealed, arguing that the refusal to instruct on EED was error.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence did not require an EED instruction.
- The Court of Appeals of New York granted leave to appeal.
Issues
- Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance where the defendant described a history of abuse and humiliation but repeatedly claimed he did not commit the killing?
Decision
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order and left the conviction intact.
- A defendant is entitled to an EED instruction only if there is sufficient credible evidence for a jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the EED elements are established.
- EED has two parts: (1) an objective component (a reasonable explanation or excuse for the disturbance) and (2) a subjective component (that the defendant was actually influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the homicide).
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to White, the court accepted that evidence of a violent, tumultuous marriage and repeated humiliation could satisfy the objective component.
- The court held, however, that the record did not contain sufficient credible evidence of the subjective component—proof that White’s conduct at the time of the killing was in fact driven by extreme emotional disturbance.
- The court noted that a defendant’s claim of innocence does not, by itself, bar an EED instruction merely because EED may be inconsistent with a total denial of involvement.
- Even so, White’s repeated claims of innocence affected the sufficiency of proof on the subjective component because they left the jury without adequate evidence that he experienced an extreme emotional disturbance during the homicide.
Legal Principles
-
A trial court must give an EED jury instruction only when the defense presents sufficient credible evidence from which a jury could find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the EED defense is met.
-
New York’s EED affirmative defense contains:
- an objective requirement: a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, and
- a subjective requirement: the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing.
-
A defendant’s inconsistent trial position (including a continued denial of guilt) does not automatically defeat the right to request an EED instruction.
-
If the proof does not adequately support the subjective requirement—actual influence of EED at the moment of the homicide—the court may refuse to submit the EED charge to the jury, even if the objective requirement could be met.
Conclusion
People v. White holds that an extreme emotional disturbance instruction is required only when the record contains sufficient credible evidence for a jury to find both the objective and subjective elements of EED by a preponderance of the evidence; although White’s proof of marital turmoil could support the objective element, the Court of Appeals concluded there was not enough evidence that he acted under EED at the time of the killing, so the trial court properly denied the instruction and the conviction was affirmed.