People v. Whittemore
Decision Date | 24 July 2020 |
Docket Number | KA 14-02210,666 |
Citation | 125 N.Y.S.3d 914 (Mem),185 A.D.3d 1528 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clayton S. WHITTEMORE, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the jury's rejection of the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED) was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Steen , 107 A.D.3d 1608, 1608, 967 N.Y.S.2d 572 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 959, 977 N.Y.S.2d 190, 999 N.E.2d 555 [2013] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the purportedly flawed understanding of EED exhibited by the People's psychiatric expert went "to the weight to be given the evidence rather than its admissibility" ( People v. Taylor , 75 N.Y.2d 277, 291, 552 N.Y.S.2d 883, 552 N.E.2d 131 [1990] ). Thus, Supreme Court properly refused to strike the testimony of the People's expert based on his purportedly flawed understanding of EED (see People v. Pascuzzi , 173 A.D.3d 1367, 1375, 102 N.Y.S.3d 778 [3d Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 953, 110 N.Y.S.3d 624, 134 N.E.3d 623 [2019] ; People v. Boice , 89 A.D.2d 33, 35, 455 N.Y.S.2d 859 [3d Dept. 1982] ). Moreover, given the court's instructions to the jury on EED—the accuracy of which are not challenged on appeal—the court was not obligated to "tell the jury that [the People's expert] had incorrectly stated the criteria for [EED]" (see People v. Samuels , 99 N.Y.2d 20, 25-26, 750 N.Y.S.2d 828, 780 N.E.2d 513 [2002] ; People v. Radcliffe , 232 N.Y. 249, 254-255, 133 N.E. 577 [1921] ). Finally, defendant did not preserve his contention that the People violated his due process rights by failing to correct their expert's ostensibly inaccurate testimony about EED (see People v. Rivera , 70 A.D.3d 1484, 1484, 894 N.Y.S.2d 661 [4th Dept.. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 756, 906 N.Y.S.2d 829, 933 N.E.2d 228 [2010] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Gilbert
...precise statutory language "went ‘to the weight to be given the evidence rather than its admissibility’ " ( People v. Whittemore, 185 A.D.3d 1528, 1529, 125 N.Y.S.3d 914 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 977, 138 N.Y.S.3d 476, 162 N.E.3d 705 [2020], quoting People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 291, 5......
-
People v. Bohn
...understanding of extreme emotional disturbance went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony (see People v. Whittemore, 185 A.D.3d 1528, 125 N.Y.S.3d 914 ). The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People eliciting the sentencing range for manslau......
-
People v. Gilbert
...use the precise statutory language "went 'to the weight to be given the evidence rather than its admissibility'" (People v Whittemore, 185 A.D.3d 1528, 1529 [2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 977 [2020], quoting People v Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 291 [1990]). In the context used by Antoniak, to "tell......
-
People v. Gilbert
... ... appreciate" as set forth in Penal Law § 40.15 ... Antoniak's failure to use the precise statutory language ... "went 'to the weight to be given the evidence rather ... than its admissibility'" ( People v ... Whittemore , 185 A.D.3d 1528, 1529 [2020], lv ... denied 36 N.Y.3d 977 [2020], quoting People v ... Taylor , 75 N.Y.2d 277, 291 [1990]). In the context used ... by Antoniak, to "tell" means to ... "recognize" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, ... tell, ... ...