People v. Valles
New York Court of Appeals
POINTS OF COUNSEL The Grand Jury proceeding was not “defective” due to the absence of an instruction by the prosecutor on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance.
Read the full summary
POINTS OF COUNSEL The Grand Jury proceeding was not “defective” due to the absence of an instruction by the prosecutor on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. (.People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389; People v Shelton, 88 Mise 2d 136, 78 AD2d 821; People v Casassa, 49 NY2d 668; People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288; People v Ford, 102 Mise 2d 160; United States v Calandra, 414 US 338; Matter of Additional Jan. 1979 Grand Jury of Albany Supreme Ct. v Doe, 50 NY2d 14; People v Rosenbaum, 107 Mise 2d 501; People v Galuppo, 98 Mise 2d 395; People v Karassik, 90 Mise 2d 839.) The courts…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Wachtler, J.
Defendant was arrested and charged with having shot and killed a man. Exercising his right to testify before the Grand Jury, defendant asserted that the shooting occurred as the result of his efforts to protect his stepdaughter from an attack. The charge of murder in the second degree,* and upon defendant’s specific request, the complete defense of justification, were submitted to the Grand Jury for its consideration. Defendant was indicted for murder in the second degree.
The evidence before the Grand Jury was clearly sufficient to establish a prima facie case.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. Calbud, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
3Cited by192 opinions
- Jocks v. TavernierCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- People v. PelchatNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. GoetzNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. LancasterNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- People v. HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
187 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.