People v. Graves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Graves

238 A.D.2d 754, 656 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3950

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

DecidedApril 17, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 754 (People v. Graves) 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. Graves, 238 A.D.2d 754, 656 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Teresi, J.), rendered December 22, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of robbery in the first and second degrees in connection with his stealing money from a taxi cab driver. Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for the appointment of a particular expert, at a proposed cost of $1,500, to testify as to the ef[755]*755fects of smoking crack cocaine on a person’s ability to form an intent to commit a crime. We disagree. Even accepting that defendant was entitled to the services of an expert in this area, he was not necessarily allowed the expert of his own choosing (see, People v Lane, 195 AD2d 876, 878, lv denied 82 NY2d 850). Being indigent, defendant is entitled to have County Court appoint an expert at public expense (see, County Law § 722-c). However, the statute specifically limits the expert’s compensation to $300, unless the court determines that "extraordinary circumstances” warrant approval of a greater fee (id.).

Here, County Court concluded that the proposed fee was exorbitant and that extraordinary circumstances were not present. Given the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in this regard (see, People v Lane, supra). It is also noteworthy that defendant did not request a further adjournment to locate another expert (see, id., at 878).

Nor can it be said that the lack of an expert deprived defendant of his right to present a defense or his right to a fair trial (cf., People v Jones, 210 AD2d 904, affd 85 NY2d 998), for defendant admitted that he knew at the time of each of the robberies with which he was charged that he was getting into a taxi cab for the express purpose of procuring money. Thus, there appears to be no genuine issue with respect to defendant’s mental state, sufficient to require the appointment of an expert (see, Ake v Oklahoma, 470 US 68, 82-83; People v McLane, 166 Misc 2d 698).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Teresi, J.), rendered December 22, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of robbery in the first and second degrees in connection with his stealing money from a taxi cab driver. Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for the appointment of a particular expert, at a proposed cost of $1,500, to testify as to the ef[755]*755fects of smoking crack cocaine on a person’s ability to form an intent to commit a crime. We disagree. Even accepting that defendant was entitled to the services of an expert in this area, he was not necessarily allowed the expert of his own choosing (see, People v Lane, 195 AD2d 876, 878, lv denied 82 NY2d 850). Being indigent, defendant is entitled to have County Court appoint an expert at public expense (see, County Law § 722-c). However, the statute specifically limits the expert’s compensation to $300, unless the court determines that "extraordinary circumstances” warrant approval of a greater fee (id.).

Here, County Court concluded that the proposed fee was exorbitant and that extraordinary circumstances were not present. Given the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in this regard (see, People v Lane, supra). It is also noteworthy that defendant did not request a further adjournment to locate another expert (see, id., at 878).

Nor can it be said that the lack of an expert deprived defendant of his right to present a defense or his right to a fair trial (cf., People v Jones, 210 AD2d 904, affd 85 NY2d 998), for defendant admitted that he knew at the time of each of the robberies with which he was charged that he was getting into a taxi cab for the express purpose of procuring money. Thus, there appears to be no genuine issue with respect to defendant’s mental state, sufficient to require the appointment of an expert (see, Ake v Oklahoma, 470 US 68, 82-83; People v McLane, 166 Misc 2d 698).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 754, 656 N.Y.S.2d 490, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-graves-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack