State v. Powell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Powell

93 A.D.3d 539, 939 N.Y.S.2d 858

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 93 A.D.3d 539 (State v. Powell) 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

State v. Powell, 93 A.D.3d 539, 939 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2010, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, upon a jury finding of mental abnormality, committed respondent to a secure treatment facility, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 17, 2011, denying respondent’s motion for a new trial in the interests of justice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was not deprived of due process, and a new trial is not warranted in the interests of justice. Although petitioner’s psychologist provided erroneous testimony regarding respondent’s score on the Static-99 risk assessment instrument, there was other overwhelming evidence of mental abnormality presented at trial, including the admission of respondent’s own expert that respondent was predisposed to commit sex offenses. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2010, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, upon a jury finding of mental abnormality, committed respondent to a secure treatment facility, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 17, 2011, denying respondent’s motion for a new trial in the interests of justice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was not deprived of due process, and a new trial is not warranted in the interests of justice. Although petitioner’s psychologist provided erroneous testimony regarding respondent’s score on the Static-99 risk assessment instrument, there was other overwhelming evidence of mental abnormality presented at trial, including the admission of respondent’s own expert that respondent was predisposed to commit sex offenses. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 A.D.3d 539, 939 N.Y.S.2d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-powell-nyappdiv-2012.