Opinion
July 23, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was involved in a dispute with the proprietor of a barbershop where the defendant had just had his hair cut, and was sprayed in the face with mace by the proprietor. The defendant left the shop and reentered approximately five minutes later, pulled out a pistol, and shot the proprietor from a distance of approximately one foot. The proprietor thereafter died of a single gunshot wound.
On appeal, the defendant's only claim of error is the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury with respect to the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (see, Penal Law § 25.00; § 125.25 [1] [a]). However, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v. Moye, 66 N.Y.2d 887, 889), we agree with the trial court that no reasonable interpretation of that evidence supports the requested charge. There is here no reasonable explanation for the existence of an emotional disturbance (cf., People v. Walker, 64 N.Y.2d 741, 743; see, People v. Feris, 144 A.D.2d 691, 692; People v Deresky, 137 A.D.2d 704), and "the evidence at trial showed [only] that defendant acted out of anger or embarrassment, or both" (People v. Walker, supra, at 743). These emotions are "not equivalent to the loss of self-control generally associated with that defense" (People v. Walker, supra, at 743). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.