People v. Carter

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Carter

293 N.E.2d 254, 31 N.Y.2d 964, 341 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1526

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 11, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 293 N.E.2d 254 (People v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Carter, 293 N.E.2d 254, 31 N.Y.2d 964, 341 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1526 (N.Y. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

*965 Per Curiam.

Since the record amply demonstrates the fact that the defendant was addicted and that the sentencing court considered his request for treatment, strict and literal compliance with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law was unnecessary. (See People v. Gordian, 39 A D 2d 861; cf. People v. Crafton, 31 N Y 2d 828.) As the Appellate Division declared in the Gordian case (39 A D 2d 861, supra), “ [t]he only purpose of the examination is to determine whether or not the defendant is an addict. If the court has determined that despite that fact a sentence to a penal institution is called for, there is no necessity for an examination. It would appear that the only instances where a report would be of any assistance to the court is where the court is in doubt as to whether the defendant is an addict and would commit him to the Commissioner if he were, and where the court has in mind suspending sentence. Absent both of these considerations, it is beyond cavil that the defendant is not prejudiced by the failure to order an examination. ’ ’

The order appealed from should be reversed and the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Breitel taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

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

*965 Per Curiam.

Since the record amply demonstrates the fact that the defendant was addicted and that the sentencing court considered his request for treatment, strict and literal compliance with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law was unnecessary. (See People v. Gordian, 39 A D 2d 861; cf. People v. Crafton, 31 N Y 2d 828.) As the Appellate Division declared in the Gordian case (39 A D 2d 861, supra), “ [t]he only purpose of the examination is to determine whether or not the defendant is an addict. If the court has determined that despite that fact a sentence to a penal institution is called for, there is no necessity for an examination. It would appear that the only instances where a report would be of any assistance to the court is where the court is in doubt as to whether the defendant is an addict and would commit him to the Commissioner if he were, and where the court has in mind suspending sentence. Absent both of these considerations, it is beyond cavil that the defendant is not prejudiced by the failure to order an examination. ’ ’

The order appealed from should be reversed and the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Breitel taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 N.E.2d 254, 31 N.Y.2d 964, 341 N.Y.S.2d 106, 1973 N.Y. LEXIS 1526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carter-ny-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack