Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

People v. Casassa

Court of Appeals of New York
404 N.E.2d 1310 (N.Y. 1980)



Victor Casassa (defendant) lived in the same apartment complex as Victoria Lo Consolo. Shortly after they met, they began dating socially for a brief period. After Lo Consolo told Casassa that she was not “falling in love” with him, Casassa became devastated and undertook bizarre acts such as breaking into her apartment while she was away and lying in her bed naked for a while. During the break-in, Casassa was in possession of a knife “because he knew that he was either going to hurt Victoria or Victoria was going to cause himself to commit suicide.” After Lo Consolo rejected Casassa’s last attempt to win her over, he took out a knife and stabbed her several times. Casassa then dragged her body into the bathroom and submerged her in a tub full of water to “make sure she was dead.” Casassa was charged with second-degree murder and waived his right to a jury trial. The sole issue at trial was whether, at the time of the killing, he acted under the influence of “extreme emotional disturbance.” Defense counsel presented one witness, a psychiatrist who testified that Casassa became obsessed with Lo Consolo. The prosecution produced several rebuttal witnesses including a psychiatrist who said that although Casassa was emotionally disturbed, he was not under the influence of “extreme emotional disturbance.” The trial court concluded that the appropriate test to determine whether Casassa was under the influence of “extreme emotional disturbance” was to examine the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of Casassa as well as from the point of view of a reasonable person. The court found Casassa’s emotional reaction at the time of the killing was so peculiar that it could not be considered reasonable so as to reduce the charge of second-degree murder to manslaughter. Casassa was convicted of second-degree murder and he appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Jasen, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 499,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial