People v. Hetherington

• Decision Date: 12 July 1996
• Citation: 645 N.Y.S.2d 679,229 A.D.2d 916
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John HETHERINGTON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 679

645 N.Y.S.2d 679

229 A.D.2d 916

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John HETHERINGTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

July 12, 1996.

Edward J. Nowak by Drew Dubrin, Rochester, for Appellant.

Howard R. Relin by Robert Mastrocola, Rochester, for Respondent.

Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, FALLON, CALLAHAN and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant was charged with intentional murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] and depraved indifference murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[2] for killing his estranged wife by shooting her in the back with a shotgun in the parking lot of a restaurant. At trial, defendant conceded that he shot and killed his wife, but raised the affirmative defense that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (see, Penal Law § 125.25[1][a] ) brought on by marital problems. A psychiatrist testified for the defense that defendant was acting under extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the shooting; the psychiatrist called by the People disagreed. County Court instructed the jury on the applicable law, including the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Defendant was convicted of intentional murder in the second degree.

At oral argument of this appeal, defendant conceded that the court properly instructed the jury that it could consider the assertion by a defense witness of her privilege against self- incrimination in assessing the witness's credibility (see, People v. Siegel, 87 N.Y.2d 536, 543-545, 640 N.Y.S.2d 831, 663 N.E.2d 872).

Defendant contends that the prosecutor misstated the law with respect to the defense of extreme emotional disturbance, both during his questioning of the People's expert witness and also during summation, by stating that defendant must prove that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for his actions, instead of a reasonable explanation or excuse for the extreme emotional disturbance (see, People v. White, 79 N.Y.2d 900, 903, 581 N.Y.S.2d 651, 590 N.E.2d 236). Although it is improper for the prosecutor to misstate the law on summation (see, People v. Butler, 185 A.D.2d 141, 144, 585 N.Y.S.2d 751; People v. Pauli, 130 A.D.2d 389, 391-393, 515 N.Y.S.2d 251, appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 911, 524 N.Y.S.2d 429, 519 N.E.2d 339), the court sustained defendant's objection and gave appropriate curative instructions to the jury, advising it not to accept the law as stated by the attorneys,...