People v. McCraw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCraw

29 A.D.2d 542, 285 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2880

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 542 (People v. McCraw) 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. McCraw, 29 A.D.2d 542, 285 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, dated January 27, 1967, affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., and Benjamin, J., concur; Munder, J., concurs with the following memorandum: Because I cannot distinguish People v. Bailey (28 A D 2d 126) and People v. Leisen (28 A D 2d 926), where the psychiatric reports were not more precise than in the instant ease, I feel bound by those decisions. However, I adhere to my dissent in Leisen and that of Mr. Justice Hopkins in Bailey. Indeed, in this case I am more persuaded in that direction because of defendant’s demand, which was rejected by the County Court, for a judicial hearing at which he might controvert the psychiatric findings. Christ and Rabin, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and remand' defendant for resentence upon the ground that the psychiatric report, upon which the sentence of one day to life pursuant to section 2189-a of the Penal Law was predicated, did not discuss and analyze defendant’s sexual problem and whether his condition was of a type which would yield to treatment (cf. People v. Kearse, 28 A D 2d 910).

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

Judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, dated January 27, 1967, affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., and Benjamin, J., concur; Munder, J., concurs with the following memorandum: Because I cannot distinguish People v. Bailey (28 A D 2d 126) and People v. Leisen (28 A D 2d 926), where the psychiatric reports were not more precise than in the instant ease, I feel bound by those decisions. However, I adhere to my dissent in Leisen and that of Mr. Justice Hopkins in Bailey. Indeed, in this case I am more persuaded in that direction because of defendant’s demand, which was rejected by the County Court, for a judicial hearing at which he might controvert the psychiatric findings. Christ and Rabin, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and remand' defendant for resentence upon the ground that the psychiatric report, upon which the sentence of one day to life pursuant to section 2189-a of the Penal Law was predicated, did not discuss and analyze defendant’s sexual problem and whether his condition was of a type which would yield to treatment (cf. People v. Kearse, 28 A D 2d 910).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 542, 285 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccraw-nyappdiv-1967.