People v. Earel

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Earel

678 N.E.2d 471, 89 N.Y.2d 960, 655 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 91

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 678 N.E.2d 471 (People v. Earel) 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. Earel, 678 N.E.2d 471, 89 N.Y.2d 960, 655 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 91 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

*961 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35). Prior to trial, defendant moved to compel the complainant to submit to a psychiatric examination. In support of the motion, defendant’s attorney submitted an affidavit premised only on the assertion that, at the time of the rape, the victim had been taking the psychotropic medications Prolixin and Lithium. Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that defendant had not demonstrated a compelling need justifying a psychiatric examination of the victim. The Appellate Division affirmed on the basis that the trial court had no authority to order a psychiatric examination of the complaining witness.

We do not reach the question whether a trial court has the power to order a complaining witness to submit to a psychiatric examination. Assuming without deciding that the trial court has such power, the defendant here failed to show record support for his claim that such an examination is compelled to ensure a fair trial (see, People v Passenger, 175 AD2d 944; see generally, Note, Compulsory Psychological Examination In Sexual Offense Cases: Invasion Of Privacy Or Defendant’s Right% 58 Fordham L Rev 1257 [1990]). Moreover, defendant’s psychiatrist, utilizing complainant’s psychiatric records, testified at length concerning complainant’s history of mental illness, including her propensity to become delusional when not taking her medications. The psychiatrist also indicated that he was able to render an opinion concerning complainant’s mental condition without having examined her.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude it is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

*961 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35). Prior to trial, defendant moved to compel the complainant to submit to a psychiatric examination. In support of the motion, defendant’s attorney submitted an affidavit premised only on the assertion that, at the time of the rape, the victim had been taking the psychotropic medications Prolixin and Lithium. Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that defendant had not demonstrated a compelling need justifying a psychiatric examination of the victim. The Appellate Division affirmed on the basis that the trial court had no authority to order a psychiatric examination of the complaining witness.

We do not reach the question whether a trial court has the power to order a complaining witness to submit to a psychiatric examination. Assuming without deciding that the trial court has such power, the defendant here failed to show record support for his claim that such an examination is compelled to ensure a fair trial (see, People v Passenger, 175 AD2d 944; see generally, Note, Compulsory Psychological Examination In Sexual Offense Cases: Invasion Of Privacy Or Defendant’s Right% 58 Fordham L Rev 1257 [1990]). Moreover, defendant’s psychiatrist, utilizing complainant’s psychiatric records, testified at length concerning complainant’s history of mental illness, including her propensity to become delusional when not taking her medications. The psychiatrist also indicated that he was able to render an opinion concerning complainant’s mental condition without having examined her.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude it is without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 N.E.2d 471, 89 N.Y.2d 960, 655 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-earel-ny-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack