People ex rel. Sweeting v. Johnston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Sweeting v. Johnston

26 A.D.2d 685, 272 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3645

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 6, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 685 (People ex rel. Sweeting v. Johnston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Sweeting v. Johnston, 26 A.D.2d 685, 272 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered November 8, 1965, which dismissed the writ, after a hearing, and remanded him to respondent's custody. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the court below for the purpose of holding a further hearing. No questions of fact have been considered. The sole issue in this habeas corpus proceeding is whether the relator, now an inmate of Matteawan State Hospital by commitment of the Court of General Sessions, New York County, dated July 19, 1957, is presently capable of understanding the criminal charge lodged against him, and of making his defense. In our opinion, the record does not provide an adequate basis upon which to make a reasoned determination as to the relator’s ability to understand the charge against him and to make his defense. Viewing the case in its entirety, we find that the court should be assisted by the opinion of an independent, disinterested psychiatrist. The law has provided the court with the power to be informed by such expert testimony under the provisions of section 32 of the Judiciary Law. Accordingly, the Attorney-General is directed to submit an order on notice to the attorney for the relator, providing for the appointment of a psychiatrist to be selected by the court, ordering that the relator be examined by such psychiatrist, that the hospital records and the briefs of counsel be made available to him, that he make a written report to the court, copies of which are to be sent to the Attorney-General and the attorney for the relator, and that thereafter he shall be available for examination by either or both parties upon the resumption of the hearing to be noticed by either party (People ex rel. Butler v. McNeill, 30 Misc 2d 722, 729). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered November 8, 1965, which dismissed the writ, after a hearing, and remanded him to respondent's custody. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the court below for the purpose of holding a further hearing. No questions of fact have been considered. The sole issue in this habeas corpus proceeding is whether the relator, now an inmate of Matteawan State Hospital by commitment of the Court of General Sessions, New York County, dated July 19, 1957, is presently capable of understanding the criminal charge lodged against him, and of making his defense. In our opinion, the record does not provide an adequate basis upon which to make a reasoned determination as to the relator’s ability to understand the charge against him and to make his defense. Viewing the case in its entirety, we find that the court should be assisted by the opinion of an independent, disinterested psychiatrist. The law has provided the court with the power to be informed by such expert testimony under the provisions of section 32 of the Judiciary Law. Accordingly, the Attorney-General is directed to submit an order on notice to the attorney for the relator, providing for the appointment of a psychiatrist to be selected by the court, ordering that the relator be examined by such psychiatrist, that the hospital records and the briefs of counsel be made available to him, that he make a written report to the court, copies of which are to be sent to the Attorney-General and the attorney for the relator, and that thereafter he shall be available for examination by either or both parties upon the resumption of the hearing to be noticed by either party (People ex rel. Butler v. McNeill, 30 Misc 2d 722, 729). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 685, 272 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-sweeting-v-johnston-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack