- Patterson v. New York (US 1977)
- Δ is charged with murder (killing a person, intending to do so); NY affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (Δ has to prove by preponderance)
- Δ went to SC, claiming that imposing this burden on him violated Mullaney
- claim that this burden is the modern phrasing of the “heat of passion” defense in Mullaney – still the same basic paradigm, Δ shouldn’t have burden of proving it
- holding: unlike in Mullaney, elements of crime and elements of defense can coexist here – state must still prove elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt
- putting on Δ burden of proving an affirmative defense isn’t asking Δ to negative any element of the crime
- policy rationale: NY really expanded the number of defenses over traditional penal law standards; this is ameliorative, and we want to encourage this
- if we force NY to assume burden of disproving defense beyond a reasonable doubt as a price of creating the defense, state will likely decide not to create the defense.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Patterson v. New York case brief
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...