People v. Cartwright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cartwright

40 A.D.2d 962, 338 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Cartwright) 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 v. Cartwright, 40 A.D.2d 962, 338 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on May 3, 1971, affirmed. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy and Eager, JJ.; McGivern, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I regret that I must dissent and conclude there should have been a hearing before the trial to determine this defendant’s sanity and capacity at the time of trial. Regrettably, the examination of the defendant by Dr. Train was after the trial, and the diagnosis was “ Schizophrenia-Residual. ” I also think counsel for the defendant would have been better advised to have sought an - independent psychiatric report to controvert the legalistic conclusion of Bellevue, dated February 22, 1971, that he was “ competent to stand trial as defined in Section 658 CCP. ” His commitment to Dannemora State Hospital 25 days after sentencing confirms the validity of this open question. (People v. Frampton, 31 A D 2d 551; see, also, People v. Bangert, 22 N Y 2d 799; People v. Sprague, 11 N Y 2d 951; People v. Boundy, 10 N Y 2d 518.)

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on May 3, 1971, affirmed. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Murphy and Eager, JJ.; McGivern, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I regret that I must dissent and conclude there should have been a hearing before the trial to determine this defendant’s sanity and capacity at the time of trial. Regrettably, the examination of the defendant by Dr. Train was after the trial, and the diagnosis was “ Schizophrenia-Residual. ” I also think counsel for the defendant would have been better advised to have sought an - independent psychiatric report to controvert the legalistic conclusion of Bellevue, dated February 22, 1971, that he was “ competent to stand trial as defined in Section 658 CCP. ” His commitment to Dannemora State Hospital 25 days after sentencing confirms the validity of this open question. (People v. Frampton, 31 A D 2d 551; see, also, People v. Bangert, 22 N Y 2d 799; People v. Sprague, 11 N Y 2d 951; People v. Boundy, 10 N Y 2d 518.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 962, 338 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cartwright-nyappdiv-1972.