People v. Babcock

• Decision Date: 20 July 2017
• Docket Number: 106481.
• Citation: 152 A.D.3d 962,59 N.Y.S.3d 527
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerald BABCOCK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

152 A.D.3d 962

59 N.Y.S.3d 527

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Gerald BABCOCK, Appellant.

106481.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

July 20, 2017.

Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, ROSE, CLARK and RUMSEY, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered December 20, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

At approximately 8:40 a.m. on March 6, 2013, defendant called 911 to report that the victim, his fiancée, had fallen down the front stairs of her residence and injured herself. The victim was thereafter transported to the hospital where she underwent surgery and died the following day. Defendant was arrested and subsequently charged by indictment with manslaughter in the first degree. County Court ordered an examination pursuant to CPL article 730 to determine defendant's competence to stand trial and, following a hearing, found defendant fit to proceed to trial. A jury trial ensued, at the conclusion of which defendant was convicted as charged. Sentenced to the maximum prison term of 25 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, defendant appeals.

We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in finding him competent to proceed to trial. "The key inquiry in determining whether a criminal defendant is fit for trial is whether he or she has sufficient present ability to consult with his or her lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he or she has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him or her" ( People v. Phillips, 16 N.Y.3d 510, 516, 924 N.Y.S.2d 4, 948 N.E.2d 428 [2011] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; accord People v. Hadfield, 119 A.D.3d 1217, 1218–1219, 990 N.Y.S.2d 683 [2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 989, 10 N.Y.S.3d 532, 32 N.E.3d 969 [2015] ; People v. Kendall, 91 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 937 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2012] ; see CPL 730.10[1] ). "In making this determination, a court may take into account the findings of any competency examination as well as its own observations of the defendant" ( People v. Kendall, 91 A.D.3d at 1192, 937 N.Y.S.2d 439 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see

People v. Phillips, 16 N.Y.3d at 517, 924 N.Y.S.2d 4, 948 N.E.2d 428 ; People v. Mendez, 1 N.Y.3d 15, 20, 769 N.Y.S.2d 162, 801 N.E.2d 382 [2003] ). Notably, "trial fitness is a legal, judicial determination, and not a medical one" ( People v. Phillips, 16 N.Y.3d at 517, 924 N.Y.S.2d 4, 948 N.E.2d 428 ; see

People v. Campbell, 279 A.D.2d 797, 798, 718 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 826, 729 N.Y.S.2d 446, 754 N.E.2d 206 [2001] ), and we accord considerable deference to a trial court's determination in this regard, particularly where, as here, it was presented with conflicting testimony as to the defendant's competence (see

People v. Surdis, 77 A.D.3d 1018, 1018–1019, 909 N.Y.S.2d 170 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 800, 919 N.Y.S.2d 517, 944 N.E.2d 1157 [2011] ; People v. Johnson, 52 A.D.3d 1040, 1042, 860 N.Y.S.2d 281 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 833, 868 N.Y.S.2d 607, 897 N.E.2d 1091 [2008] ; People v. Campbell, 279 A.D.2d at 798, 718 N.Y.S.2d 744 ).

Defendant was examined by three psychiatrists. Two psychiatrists, who testified on behalf of defendant, concluded that defendant was incompetent to stand trial, whereas the psychiatrist retained by the People found defendant competent to stand trial and concluded that defendant had feigned psychiatric symptoms to meet his personal needs. The People's psychiatrist, who had extensive experience in conducting CPL article 730 examinations, interviewed defendant for approximately one hour, reviewed relevant documents and reached his conclusion based upon his objective observations and independent documentary review. By contrast, the two psychiatrists retained by defendant based their opinions exclusively upon defendant's own statements made to them during interviews, without providing any objective proof of defendant's alleged incapacity. Indeed, defendant's psychiatrists openly acknowledged that they did not personally observe any of the diagnosed symptoms during the interviews, and one of the psychiatrists acknowledged that additional information would have been useful for her to perform a complete evaluation of defendant's competency. County Court credited the opinions of the People's psychiatrist over those of defendant's, citing to the failure of defendant's psychiatrists to provide sufficient support for their diagnoses and their lack of experience and understanding regarding competency examinations. Having observed and interacted with defendant during the course of the proceedings, the court further found conduct and responses on the part of defendant that evinced his understanding of the proceedings and ability to assist in his own defense. According deference to County Court's credibility determinations concerning the conflicting evaluations, and upon our review of the record, we find no basis upon which to disturb the court's ruling that defendant was fit to stand trial (see People v. Phillips, 16 N.Y.3d at 517–518, 924 N.Y.S.2d 4, 948 N.E.2d 428 ; People v. Kendall, 91 A.D.3d at 1192–1193, 937 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; People v. Passaro, 86 A.D.3d 717, 718–719, 926 N.Y.S.2d 748 [2011] ; People v. Campbell, 279 A.D.2d at 798, 718 N.Y.S.2d 744 ).

We turn next to defendant's challenge to County Court's Molineux rulings, which permitted the People to introduce evidence of defendant's prior acts of domestic violence against the victim. "Evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts may be admissible when it is relevant to a material issue in the case other than defendant's criminal propensity. Where there is a proper nonpropensity purpose, the decision whether to admit such evidence rests upon the trial court's discretionary balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice" ( People v. Leeson, 12 N.Y.3d 823, 826–827, 880 N.Y.S.2d 895, 908 N.E.2d 885 [2009] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipses and citations omitted]; see People v. Westerling, 48 A.D.3d 965, 966, 852 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2008] ; People v. Miles, 36 A.D.3d 1021, 1022–1023, 827 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 988, 838 N.Y.S.2d 491, 869 N.E.2d 667 [2007] ). Here, County Court properly found that evidence regarding prior instances of defendant's abusive and controlling behavior toward the victim were relevant and material to the issues of intent, motive and the absence of accident and provided necessary background information concerning the tumultuous relationship between defendant and the victim (see People v. Womack, 143 A.D.3d 1171, 1173, 41 N.Y.S.3d 302 [2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 1151, 52 N.Y.S.3d 303, 74 N.E.3d 688 [2017] ; People v. Pham, 118 A.D.3d 1159, 1161, 987 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1087, 1 N.Y.S.3d 14, 25 N.E.3d 351 [2014] ; People v. Lubrano, 117 A.D.3d 1239, 1241, 985 N.Y.S.2d 754 [2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 990, 10 N.Y.S.3d 533, 32 N.E.3d 970 [2015] ; People v. Burkett, 101 A.D.3d 1468, 1470–1471, 957 N.Y.S.2d 417 [2012], lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1096, 965 N.Y.S.2d 792, 988 N.E.2d 530 [2013] ). The court also engaged in a proper balancing of the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect (see People v. Lubrano, 117 A.D.3d at 1241, 985 N.Y.S.2d 754 ; People v. Thibeault, 73 A.D.3d 1237, 1241, 900 N.Y.S.2d 501 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 810, 908 N.Y.S.2d 170, 934 N.E.2d 904 [2010], cert. denied 562 U.S. 1293, 131 S.Ct. 1691, 179 L.Ed.2d 628 [2011] ; compare People v. Elmy, 117 A.D.3d 1183, 1187, 984 N.Y.S.2d 672 [2014] ), and its determination that the probative value far outweighed any prejudice to defendant does not constitute an abuse of discretion in view of "the circumstantial nature of the case and the temporal proximity between the victim's death and the subject incidents" ( People v. Morgan, 149 A.D.3d 1148, 1149, 51 N.Y.S.3d 218 [2017] ; see People v. Doyle, 48 A.D.3d 961, 964, 852 N.Y.S.2d 433 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 862, 860 N.Y.S.2d 488, 890 N.E.2d 251 [2008] ; People v. Williams, 29 A.D.3d 1217, 1219, 815 N.Y.S.2d 330 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 797, 821 N.Y.S.2d 827, 854 N.E.2d 1291 [2006] ). Furthermore, County Court instructed the jury as to the permissible uses of the subject evidence at the time of the relevant testimony and again during its final charge, thereby limiting the prejudicial effect of such proof (see People v. Morgan, 149 A.D.3d at 1149, 53 N.Y.S.3d 660 ; People v. Womack, 143 A.D.3d at 1174, 41 N.Y.S.3d 302 ; People v. Burkett, 101 A.D.3d at 1471, 957 N.Y.S.2d 417 ). Therefore, we discern no error in County Court's Molineux rulings.

Defendant also asserts that his conviction is against the weight of the evidence. If, in conducting a weight of the evidence review, we conclude that an acquittal would not have been unreasonable, we "must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony" in order to decide whether the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Kancharla, 23 N.Y.3d 294, 302–303, 991 N.Y.S.2d 1, 14 N.E.3d 354 [2014] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). As relevant here, "a person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when he or she, with intent to cause serious physical injury to the victim, causes the victim's death" ( People v. Kenyon, 108 A.D.3d 933, 937, 970 N.Y.S.2d 638 [2013], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1075, 974 N.Y.S.2d 324, 997...