People v. Gelikkaya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gelikkaya

197 A.D.2d 405, 602 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9484

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 405 (People v. Gelikkaya) 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. Gelikkaya, 197 A.D.2d 405, 602 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert I. Altman, J.), rendered May 24, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury [406]*406trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and sentencing him to a term of from 8 to 24 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, against the advice of counsel, insisted on testifying before the grand jury, but he was nevertheless indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree arising out of an altercation that occurred in the mosque which he was attending. Approximately two months after defendant made his grand jury appearance, he was found unfit to stand trial based upon a psychiatric examination performed pursuant to CPL article 730 and was committed to the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center. Defendant was eventually determined to be competent, and his trial finally commenced on April 26, 1990, more than two years after his initial arrest on February 18, 1988. Following a jury trial at which defendant took the stand on his own behalf, he was convicted.

On appeal, defendant challenges the use of his grand jury testimony for impeachment purposes at trial, urging that his often rambling and incoherent comments to the grand jury, coupled with the subsequent determination of incompetency and his diagnosis as a chronic paranoid schizophrenic, were sufficient to raise serious doubts about his fitness to appear before the grand jury. Thus, defendant argues that he was not competent to waive his rights, and any statements made by him to the grand jury were involuntary and inadmissible for any purpose.

An individual is considered fit until adjudicated otherwise since there is a presumption of competency (People v Silver, 33 NY2d 475), and there was no determination that defendant was not competent at the time that he decided to testify before the grand jury. While defendant’s remarks before that body were not a model of clarity, the portions of the testimony used by the prosecutor to impeach defendant were rational responses to the questions posed to him. Indeed, it appears that defendant understood the charges against him and the nature of the grand jury proceedings. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert I. Altman, J.), rendered May 24, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury [406]*406trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and sentencing him to a term of from 8 to 24 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, against the advice of counsel, insisted on testifying before the grand jury, but he was nevertheless indicted for attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree arising out of an altercation that occurred in the mosque which he was attending. Approximately two months after defendant made his grand jury appearance, he was found unfit to stand trial based upon a psychiatric examination performed pursuant to CPL article 730 and was committed to the Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center. Defendant was eventually determined to be competent, and his trial finally commenced on April 26, 1990, more than two years after his initial arrest on February 18, 1988. Following a jury trial at which defendant took the stand on his own behalf, he was convicted.

On appeal, defendant challenges the use of his grand jury testimony for impeachment purposes at trial, urging that his often rambling and incoherent comments to the grand jury, coupled with the subsequent determination of incompetency and his diagnosis as a chronic paranoid schizophrenic, were sufficient to raise serious doubts about his fitness to appear before the grand jury. Thus, defendant argues that he was not competent to waive his rights, and any statements made by him to the grand jury were involuntary and inadmissible for any purpose.

An individual is considered fit until adjudicated otherwise since there is a presumption of competency (People v Silver, 33 NY2d 475), and there was no determination that defendant was not competent at the time that he decided to testify before the grand jury. While defendant’s remarks before that body were not a model of clarity, the portions of the testimony used by the prosecutor to impeach defendant were rational responses to the questions posed to him. Indeed, it appears that defendant understood the charges against him and the nature of the grand jury proceedings. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 405, 602 N.Y.S.2d 372, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gelikkaya-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack