People v. Tabarez Case Brief

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York1985Docket #62377539
113 A.D.2d 461 497 N.Y.S.2d 80 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52944

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: A defendant charged with attempted murder of a police officer sought a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED). The court held that EED can apply to attempted murder and that the defendant’s evidence of psychological issues met the threshold for the instruction.

Legal Significance: This case establishes that the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED) applies to attempted murder in New York. It also clarifies the low evidentiary threshold required for a defendant to be entitled to a jury instruction on the defense, even when the act follows another felony.

People v. Tabarez Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The defendant, who had been unemployed for nine months, robbed a liquor store. After leaving, he wandered aimlessly before being confronted by a police officer. When the officer ordered him to stop, the defendant turned and fired a shot, later stating he was “just scared.” After firing, he resumed walking until surrounded by more officers. At trial for attempted murder, the defense presented expert psychiatric testimony that the defendant had an IQ of 66, schizophrenia, and several personality disorders. The expert opined that the defendant had become increasingly depressed and that the shooting was a “spontaneous” and “isolated explosive episode” resulting from “great emotional stress.” The expert attributed this stress not only to the robbery but also to pre-existing, non-culpable factors like his prolonged unemployment, fragile personality, and the residual effects of a childhood illness. The trial court denied the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED).

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance for a charge of attempted murder when the defendant presented evidence of pre-existing psychological conditions and stressors separate from the underlying felony?

Yes. The trial court’s refusal to give the requested jury instruction was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut lab

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance for a charge of attempted murder when the defendant presented evidence of pre-existing psychological conditions and stressors separate from the underlying felony?

Conclusion

This case significantly broadened the application of the EED defense in New Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exer

Legal Rule

The affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED), as defined in N.Y. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim v

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in two parts. First, applying principles of statutory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED) applies to attempted
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial