People v. Black
| Decision Date | 03 May 1976 |
| Citation | 86 Misc.2d 909,382 N.Y.S.2d 944 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Ronald BLACK. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Kings County by Paul Ornstein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, of counsel, for the People.
Bressler & Lida, New York City by Robert N. Bressler, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
Defendant makes two motions, both of which will be determined by this decision.
In his first motion defendant seeks an order (1) 'convening a hearing in camera' to inquire into and to determine the audibility of certain tape recordings made by one Henry V. Agin, M.D. during a psychological examination of defendant; (2) admitting said tape recordings into evidence upon the trial of this matter upon a finding of proper audibility; (3) permitting the introduction into evidence of the findings of Henry V. Agin, M.D. as is more fully set forth in his report to the Honorable Guy J. Mangano dated April 17, 1975 insofar as the same may be pertinent to defendant's defense; and (4) dismissing the indictment in the interests of justice (CPL § 210.20 subdivision (1) and § 210.40).
In his second motion defendant requests an order appointing Mr. Nat Laurendi of Certified Lie Detection, Inc. as a special investigator under Article 18--B of the County Law to submit the defendant, with his consent, to a polygraph test.
The defendant has been indicted for manslaughter in the first degree. It is alleged that on or about April 2, 1974 the defendant stabbed one Mario Ramirez, also known as Peter Ramos. The People claim that after the stabbing the defendant was chased by two witnesses and was allegedly struck by these two pursuers. It is the defendant's claim that on the day in question he had gone to his place of employment and taken out the sum of $1900 which he had saved to purchase a car for his wife and that on his way home he was accosted, assaulted and robbed of the $1900 by four men, and in the course of struggling with them was struck over the head with a pipe. He further claims to have no recollection of anything thereafter until he awoke in a hospital several days later nor any recollection of having stabbed anyone. It appears that no knife or any other weapon was recovered from the scene of the crime or the defendant's possession.
In view of the fact that defendant claimed he had no recollection of having stabbed anyone, a request was made for an examination pursuant to Article 730 of the CPL to determine if the defendant was an incapacitated person. Such an examination was conducted in May of 1974 by Dr. Adolph Goldman and Dr. Franklin S. Klaf, both of whom found that defendant did not lack capacity to understand the proceeding against him or assist in his defense and found him fit to proceed to trial.
Subsequently, in September of 1974, a motion was made for an order appointing another psychiatrist to examine the defendant for the purpose of determining if he was an incapacitated person and for sodium pentothal testing. That motion was granted by Mr. Justice Mangano, and Dr. Henry V. Agin was appointed to conduct such examination, which was had on or about April 7, 1975.
It is defendant's contention that the results of that examination, the contents of the taped interview at that examination, and Dr. Agin's findings are admissible since it is not sought to use the same to prove the truth or falsity of defendant's statements while under the influence of sodium pentothal, but rather for the purpose of determining the defendant's mental state or condition at the alleged commission of the crime. It is claimed that the defendant may have acted under extreme emotional duress, or was rendered temporarily unfit by the blow he suffered to his head, or that he acted in his own defense.
The controlling authority in this area is People v. Ford, 304 N.Y. 679, 107 N.E.2d 595 (1952). In that case, the commission of the crime was conceded, but psychiatric testimony was sought to indicate defendant's limited mental capacity on the question of whether he was incapable of premeditation or deliberation. The majority of the court held that evidence of an examination by a psychiatrist pertaining to the injection of sodium amytal into defendant's body was not admissible. (See also People v. Brownsky, 35 Misc.2d 134, 228 N.Y.S.2d 476; 23...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zinn v. Bernic Const. Inc.
...N.Y.2d 329, 296 N.Y.S.2d 760, 244 N.E.2d 243 (1968); People v. Guerin, 47 A.D.2d 788, 366 N.Y.S.2d 61 (3d Dept., 1975); People v. Black, 86 Misc.2d 909, 382 N.Y.S.2d 944 (Supreme Ct., Kings County, 1976); People v. Hargrove, 80 Misc.2d 317, 363 N.Y.S.2d 241 (Supreme Ct., Westchester County,......