NCJ Number
38158
Journal
Brooklyn Law Review Volume: 43 Issue: 1 Dated: (SUMMER 1976) Pages: 171-199
Date Published
1976
Length
29 pages
Annotation
EXAMINATION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS' INTERPRETATION OF THE US SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MULLANEY V WILBUR (1975) IN LIGHT OF THEIR RULING IN PEOPLE V PATTERSON (1976).
Abstract
THE UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT RULING IN MULLANEY HELD THAT THE MAINE HOMICIDE LAWS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE ABSENCE OF THE HEAT OF PASSION ON SUDDEN PROVOCATION WHEN THE ISSUE IS PROPERLY PRESENTED IN A HOMICIDE CASE. PATTERSON APPEALED HIS HOMICIDE CONVICTION ASSERTING THAT MULLANEY WARRANTED A REVERSAL BECAUSE NEW YORK'S PENAL LAW WHICH PLACES THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON A DEFENDANT WHO MAINTAINS THAT HE ACTED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE WAS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE MAINE COUNTERPART AND THEREFORE, VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS. THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION HOLDING THAT MULLANEY WAS NOT CONTROLLING AND THAT THE STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRE A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE. THE ARTICLE BRIEFLY REVIEWS THE REACTIONS OF OTHER STATE COURTS TO MULLANEY AND ANALYZES THE REASONING OF THE JUDGES IN PATTERSON. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT A REVERSAL OF PATTERSON BY THE US SUPREME COURT IS LIKELY.