|
|
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)
Patterson v. New York No. 75-1861 Argued March 1, 1977 Decided June 17, 1977 432 U.S. 197
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
New York law requiring that the defendant in a prosecution for second-degree murder prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter held not to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, distinguished. Pp. 201-216.
(a) Such affirmative defense does not serve to negative any facts of the crime which the State must prove in order to convict, but constitutes a separate issue on which the defendant is required to carry the burden of persuasion. Pp. 206-207.
(b) The Due Process Clause does not put New York to the choice of abandoning such an affirmative defense or undertaking to disprove its existence in order to convict for a crime which is otherwise within the State’s constitutional powers to sanction by substantial punishment. If the State chooses to recognize a factor that mitigates the degree of criminality or punishment, it may assure itself that the fact has been established with reasonable certainty, and to recognize at all a mitigating circumstance does not require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt its nonexistence in each case in which the fact is put in issue if, in its judgment, this would be too cumbersome, expensive, and inaccurate. Pp. 207-209.
39 N.Y.2d 288, 347 N.E.2d 898, affirmed.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 216. REHNQUIST, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) in 432 U.S. 197 432 U.S. 198. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ACHGHCDPW2TVWUL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977), in 432 U.S. 197, page 432 U.S. 198. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ACHGHCDPW2TVWUL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). cited in 1977, 432 U.S. 197, pp.432 U.S. 198. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ACHGHCDPW2TVWUL.
|