People v. Baier

• Citation: 422 N.Y.S.2d 734,73 A.D.2d 649
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edwin BAIER and Alfred Sluisman, Appellants.
• Decision Date: 17 December 1979
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 734

422 N.Y.S.2d 734

73 A.D.2d 649

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edwin BAIER and Alfred Sluisman, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Dec. 17, 1979.

Vincent G. Berger, Jr., Commack, for appellant Baier.

Barbara & Cohn, Carle Place (Dominic A. Barbara, Carle Place, of counsel), for appellant Sluisman.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney, Kew Gardens, and William C Donnino, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent.

Before HOPKINS, J. P., and DAMIANI, TITONE and MANGANO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeals by defendants from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County, one as to each defendant, both rendered January 19, 1978, convicting each of them of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Judgments reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered.

Defendants were indicted for, Inter alia, rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The complainant, 15 years old at the time of the alleged crimes, had an extensive history of mental illness necessitating lengthy periods of hospitalization. Diagnosed as suffering from "schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type", and an in-patient at the time of the trial, the complainant's symptoms included withdrawal, anxiety and hallucinations. As a result, the complainant's mental condition, her ability to distinguish fact from fantasy, her capacity to take an oath and her general credibility were critical factors which permeated the trial. Prior to swearing her, the trial court sought to determine her competency to testify (see People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 45-46, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, 856-857, 359 N.E.2d 358, 365-367; see, also, Richardson, Evidence (Prince, 10th ed.), § 389). Moreover, upon the People's application, the trial court allowed a clinical psychologist who had personal knowledge of the complainant's condition by virtue of having worked extensively with her, to testify before the jury. The sole purpose of the psychologist's testimony was to help the jury in evaluating the complainant's credibility by providing an objective, factual framework for the jury to perceive the complainant's mental illness. Although the complainant's voluminous mental health and hospital records were subpoenaed by the defendants, the trial court denied the defendants access to such records for cross-examination purposes on the ground that they were largely irrelevant. On appeal, the defendants challenge the testimony of the psychologist entirely, or in the alternative, if the testimony was proper, then defendants argue that the trial court should have ordered the complainant to be examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist or a defense psychiatrist who then should have been allowed to testify, and finally the defendants also attack the trial court's denial of access to the complainant's mental health records for the purpose of cross-examination.

We agree with the defendants that their right to a meaningful and effective cross-examination was impeded by the trial court's failure to allow them use of the hospital records and, hence, a new trial is warranted (see Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-317, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347). In People v. Parks (41 N.Y.2d 36, 390 N.Y.S.2d 848, ...