Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James BRIGHTHART, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered June 18, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion by precluding, as impermissible hearsay, proposed testimony by defendant's girlfriend regarding statements allegedly made by defendant to her concerning various conduct by the deceased prior to the subject incident (see, People v. Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816, 819, 537 N.Y.S.2d 113, 534 N.E.2d 30). In any event, following an appropriate offer of proof, defendant's expert psychiatric witness was permitted to testify regarding defendant's state of mind, including defendant's reported emotional reactions to alleged behavior of the victim during the months preceding the murder.
The court properly permitted cross-examination of defendant's expert psychiatric witness regarding his consideration of defendant's past violent criminal acts, as well as alleged acts of violence by defendant against the victim for which a good faith basis were shown. The witness acknowledged that such matters were relevant to his evaluation of defendant's emotional state of mind at the time in question, and thus were relevant to the jury's consideration of the validity of the witness's reasoning and conclusions (People v. Stone, 35 N.Y.2d 69, 74-76, 358 N.Y.S.2d 737, 315 N.E.2d 787; see also, People v. Sugden, 35 N.Y.2d 453, 460, 363 N.Y.S.2d 923, 323 N.E.2d 169). In addition, the court properly instructed the jury regarding appropriate consideration of the references to violent acts, characterized as “allegations”.
Defendant's additional claims of error are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would reject them.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 12, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)