People v. Baldi
| Decision Date | 16 June 1980 |
| Citation | 429 N.Y.S.2d 677,76 A.D.2d 259 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Joseph BALDI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Charles N. Walsh, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and TITONE, LAZER, COHALAN and MARTUSCELLO, JJ.
At about 3:30 A.M. on June 17, 1972, Deborah Januszko, a girl of 15, was brutally knifed in the chest while sleeping in her ground floor bedroom. Before expiring, the girl told her parents (who had rushed to the room in response to her scream) that the assailant had stabbed her through an open window. Four days later, Joseph Baldi was arrested for the crime and allegedly re-enacted the murder three times at the police precinct house and a fourth time at the scene of the crime itself. It was shortly discovered that Baldi was being sought in connection with an existing indictment for attempted murder and some lesser crimes, that he had been adjudicated incompetent to stand trial on that indictment, and that following confinement to various mental institutions, he had been released in February of 1972 without the sanction of law enforcement authorities. Two weeks after the arrest for the Januszko slaying, the defendant's appointed attorney agreed to the delivery of his client to the District Attorney's office for further interrogation. During the course of two examinations at the prosecutor's office, Baldi is said to have re-enacted numerous murders and assaults. More than two years later, after trial by jury, the defendant was convicted on his earlier indictment. At a bench trial which followed, he was convicted of murder.
On this consolidated appeal from both judgments of conviction, defendant raises two issues: (1) that his sanity was not established beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The latter issue not only implicates the standard or standards under which claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be evaluated in this State, but it also compels us to examine how such claims are affected by considerations of trial strategy. Ultimately, we must decide the relationship between the harmless error doctrine and proof of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The first of the judgments appealed stems from events which occurred in Woodhaven in Queens County during the pre-dawn hours of September 5, 1971. The defendant originally was apprehended when two police officers, searching for a prowler, came upon him walking the street in dark clothes. When asked for identification, Baldi allegedly responded by attempting to shoot one of the officers. The gun having misfired, the policemen wrestled the six-foot and four-inch defendant to the ground, disarmed him, and discovered that he possessed an automobile license, registration, and Social Security card in the name of Anna Heeseman. Awakened by the police, Mrs. Heeseman related that before retiring she placed her purse containing the three documents on the dining room table next to a closed window. Not only was the purse missing, but the window was open and the table cloth had been pulled the length of the table toward it.
The defendant was indicted for attempted murder, reckless endangerment in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, possession of weapons, etc., as a felony, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and petit larceny, but after being jailed for 10 days and confined at the Kings County State Hospital for six to seven weeks, he was adjudicated incompetent to stand trial. Further successive confinements in two other mental institutions terminated with the defendant's release by Mental Hygiene officials in February, 1972, without notice to the proper authorities. 1
Upon Baldi's arrest for the Januszko murder in June, 1972, he was questioned at the 16th District precinct house by Detective The next day, while at Kings County State Hospital, Baldi received his first visit from the attorney appointed to represent him in connection with the Januszko charge and who subsequently defended him against the earlier indictment as well. Following this meeting, the attorney consented to the entry of a court order directing that his client be delivered to the District Attorney's office "for the purpose of cooperating with District Attorney's Office in connection with pending investigations." On July 7, 1972 the defendant was transported to the District Attorney's office where his counsel, Detective Lamardo, a number of other detectives, and a psychiatrist from Creedmoor State Hospital were present. When the attorney introduced himself to Baldi, the latter denied ever meeting him and had no recollection of their brief encounter at Kings County State Hospital. During the next several hours which were tape-recorded the defendant gave a detailed re-enactment of at least four murders, including that of Deborah Januszko. On July 14, 1972, the defendant again was taken to the District Attorney's office and, in the presence of his lawyer, Detective Lamardo, and Dr. Daniel Schwartz, director of forensic psychiatry at Kings County Hospital, gave further statements concerning the murders. Indictments for the four killings quickly followed.
Angelo Lamardo in the presence of two other detectives. According to testimony adduced at the ensuing trials, after telling the detectives that he had "cut" a girl and upon receiving assurances that he would not be harmed, the defendant picked up an imaginary object which appeared to be a square box on the floor in front of a mirror, made a climbing motion as though he were stepping up on it, raised his hands to the mirror and started feeling it with his hands. He then drew a second imaginary object from his pocket, raised his hand in the air, made a sudden stabbing motion, and, after wiping the object with his fingers, returned it to his pocket. This performance concluded with the defendant's collapse to the floor, but after a brief respite, he re-enacted the crime twice more. On the last occasion (which was tape-recorded) the defendant described the specifics of Deborah Januszko's room and what she was wearing when stabbed. Driven to the area of the crime, the defendant picked up and carried an imaginary box to the Januszko house, placed it next to a window in the alleyway, and appeared to re-enact the details of the crime.
In April of 1973, Baldi was arraigned on the attempted murder indictment and on the four murder indictments. The psychiatric report rendered pursuant to CPL 730.30 concluded that the defendant was suffering from an unspecified personality disorder but that he did not lack the capacity to understand the trial proceedings or make his defense. These findings were accepted by defense counsel without a hearing and the defendant pleaded not guilty and raised the defense of insanity with reference to all of the indictments. In December of 1973, the defendant was remanded for further psychiatric examinations to determine his sanity at the time of the attempted murder. Although the record is somewhat obscure on this point, it seems to indicate that the resultant findings of sanity, rendered in January, 1974, were accepted solely to the extent that the defendant was found capable of standing trial. No hearing on the issue was demanded or conducted.
Prior to the onset of the defendant's trial in October, 1974 on the charge of attempted murder, another psychiatric examination was ordered and again the conclusion that the defendant was competent to stand trial was accepted by defense counsel without a hearing. The evidence presented by the prosecution included the police officers' description of their street encounter with the defendant, and Mrs. Heeseman's description of her conduct before retiring for bed and her discovery when she awoke.
Testifying in his own defense, Baldi first described his own extensive history of mental illness, including commitment to Creedmoor State Hospital from 1962 to "Q Did you on September 20, 1970, a year before you were arrested in this case, stab and kill Areti Koularmanis at 144-06 88th Avenue?
1966. He then denied pointing a gun at the policeman, asserting that he was wrestled down from the rear and that the only weapon in his possession was a "22 starting pistol" capable of firing "caps". Although the defendant acknowledged the presence of the Heeseman documents in his pocket, he explained that he had found them on the curb about a half block from where he was subsequently stopped and that he had intended to put them in a mailbox for return to the owner. The following questions were then put to the defendant by his own attorney:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mundon
...of the accused's right against self incrimination is ... basic to modern criminal law jurisprudence[.]" People v. Boldi, 76 A.D.2d 259, 285, 429 N.Y.S.2d 677 (N.Y.App.Div.1980), rev'd on other grounds by People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 (1981). Of course, thi......
-
People v. Claudio
..."farce and mockery" test to the "reasonable competence" standard and the "flexible framework" approach (see, e.g., People v. Baldi, 76 A.D.2d 259, 278-281, 429 N.Y.S.2d 677, revd. on other grounds 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400, supra, for description of various standards a......
-
People v. Slavik
...of interest and then shifting it to the prosecution to show that it didn't really make any difference. In People v. Baldi, 76 A.D.2d 259, 429 N.Y.S.2d 677 (2nd Dept.,1980), the Court noted that "... in the face of a defendant's demonstration that counsel's performance probably prejudiced hi......
-
People v. Dietz
...48 N.Y.2d 933, 425 N.Y.S.2d 57, 401 N.E.2d 180, supra; People v. Jones, 25 N.Y.2d 637, 306 N.Y.S.2d 17, 254 N.E.2d 232; People v. Baldi, 76 A.D.2d 259, 429 N.Y.S.2d 677). The record establishes that defense counsel's cross-examination of prosecution witnesses implicated defendant in three s......