People v. Kruglik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kruglik

256 A.D.2d 592, 682 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 592 (People v. Kruglik) 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. Kruglik, 256 A.D.2d 592, 682 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered September 25, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[593]*593Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly ordered him to submit to a psychiatric examination upon his service of notice pursuant to CPL 250.10 of his intention to use psychiatric evidence. In support of his justification defense, the defendant sought to introduce expert testimony about how some people behave as if on “automatic pilot” under extremely stressful situations. Although the expert did not examine the defendant, notice pursuant to CPL 250.10 was required and the court thereupon had the authority to direct a psychiatric examination of the defendant (see, CPL 250.10; People v Berk, 88 NY2d 257, cert denied 519 US 859). Moreover, the defendant waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when he placed his mental state in issue by offering expert psychiatric evidence in support of his justification defense (see, People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 331, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 NY2d 625; People v Rossakis, 159 Misc 2d 611, 613-615; see also, People v Segal, 54 NY2d 58).

The court properly precluded the testimony of another expert regarding “steroid rage”, a behavioral state of hostility and anger resulting from prolonged use of steroids. As there was no evidence that the decedent, whom the defendant allegedly was defending himself and his friend against, was under the influence of steroids at the time of the incident, there was no foundation upon which the expert could base his opinion (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 646; Hugelmaier v Town of Sweden, 144 AD2d 934). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered September 25, 1996, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[593]*593Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly ordered him to submit to a psychiatric examination upon his service of notice pursuant to CPL 250.10 of his intention to use psychiatric evidence. In support of his justification defense, the defendant sought to introduce expert testimony about how some people behave as if on “automatic pilot” under extremely stressful situations. Although the expert did not examine the defendant, notice pursuant to CPL 250.10 was required and the court thereupon had the authority to direct a psychiatric examination of the defendant (see, CPL 250.10; People v Berk, 88 NY2d 257, cert denied 519 US 859). Moreover, the defendant waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when he placed his mental state in issue by offering expert psychiatric evidence in support of his justification defense (see, People v Cruickshank, 105 AD2d 325, 331, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 NY2d 625; People v Rossakis, 159 Misc 2d 611, 613-615; see also, People v Segal, 54 NY2d 58).

The court properly precluded the testimony of another expert regarding “steroid rage”, a behavioral state of hostility and anger resulting from prolonged use of steroids. As there was no evidence that the decedent, whom the defendant allegedly was defending himself and his friend against, was under the influence of steroids at the time of the incident, there was no foundation upon which the expert could base his opinion (see, Cassano v Hagstrom, 5 NY2d 643, 646; Hugelmaier v Town of Sweden, 144 AD2d 934). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 592, 682 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kruglik-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack