PEOPLE V. CASASSA 49 N.Y.2d 668, 404 N.E.2d 1310 (1980) CASE BRIEF

PEOPLE V. CASASSA

49 N.Y.2d 668, 404 N.E.2d 1310 (1980)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Casassa (D) challenged a judgment of the Appellate Division that affirmed his conviction of murder in the second degree following a non-jury trial.

FACTS: On February 28, 1977, Victoria Lo Consolo was brutally murdered. D and Miss Lo Consolo had been acquainted for some time prior to the latter's tragic death. They met in August, 1976 as a result of their residence in the same apartment complex. Shortly thereafter, D asked Victoria to accompany him to a social function and she agreed. The two apparently dated casually on other occasions until November, 1976 when she informed defendant that she was not 'falling in love' with him. D claims that her candid statement of her feelings 'devastated him.' The rejection precipitated a bizarre series of actions on the part of D which, he asserts, demonstrate the existence of extreme emotional disturbance upon which he predicates his affirmative defense. D broke into the apartment below on several occasions to eavesdrop. These eavesdropping sessions allegedly caused him to be under great emotional stress. Thereafter, on one occasion, he broke into her apartment while she was out. Defendant took nothing, but, instead, observed the apartment, disrobed and lay on her bed. D was armed with a knife which, he later told police, he carried 'because he knew that he was either going to hurt Victoria or Victoria was going to cause him to commit suicide.' On February 28, 1977 D brought several bottles of wine and liquor with him to offer as a gift. Upon her rejection of this offering, D produced a steak knife which he had brought with him, stabbed Victoria several times in the throat, dragged her body to the bathroom and submerged it in a bathtub full of water to 'make sure she was dead.' Police were in the process of questioning several of the residents of the building when D presented himself to the police and volunteered that he had been in the victim's apartment on the night of the murder. While denying any involvement in the murder, he professed a willingness to co-operate in the investigation. On the way to the police station was informed of his constitutional rights. He indicated that he understood his rights and that he nonetheless wished to co-operate. D was interrogated by police for some nine and one-half hours thereafter and at 5:00 a.m. on the morning of March 2, 1977, he fully confessed to the murder of Victoria Lo Consolo, giving the police several oral and written statements detailing his involvement in the crime. D's mother was worried and made several calls to the Hempstead Police Department and at least one to the Nassau County Police Department's seventh precinct in Manhasset between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on March 1, 1977 and 3:00 a.m. on March 2, 1977, and was informed by the officers at these stations that her son's whereabouts were unknown despite that they had him in interrogation. Eventually, Mrs. Casassa was accurately informed that her son was held for questioning as a suspect in the Lo Consolo homicide. Thereafter, she came to the station and arranged to have counsel provided for her son. D was indicted and charged with murder in the second degree. D made several pretrial motions seeking to suppress his statements to police and several pieces of real evidence which had been given to police during questioning. The motions were denied. The sole issue presented to the trial court was whether D had acted under the influence of 'extreme emotional disturbance.' In resolving this issue noted that the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance may be based upon a series of events, rather than a single precipitating cause. It held that D must show that his reaction to such events was reasonable. In determining whether defendant's emotional reaction was reasonable, the court considered the appropriate test to be whether in the totality of the circumstances the finder of fact could understand how a person might have his reason overcome. D was found guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner