People v. Carpenter
| Decision Date | 19 June 1997 |
| Citation | 658 N.Y.S.2d 542,240 A.D.2d 863 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher CARPENTER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Cynthia Feathers, Saratoga Springs, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney (Alfred D. Chapleau, of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered November 3, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
The trial testimony, viewed in a light most favorable to the People, revealed that defendant was running a drug-selling operation in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, and that certain of his associates were at an apartment located at 714 Albany Street selling his drugs in the early morning hours of January 1, 1992. Sometime around 9:00 A.M. on that day, two males broke into the apartment and stole money and drugs from defendant's associates. In an act of reprisal, defendant shot and killed Eugene Holmes, whom he believed to be one of the perpetrators of the robbery. As a consequence, defendant was indicted and charged with murder in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count each of murder in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, for which he was sentenced to, inter alia, consecutive prison terms of 25 years to life for murder in the second degree and 8 1/3 to 25 years for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Initially, defendant contends that County Court's refusal to authorize counsel to obtain psychiatric services on his behalf impinged upon his constitutional right to present witnesses in his own defense (see, Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53). We disagree. County Law § 722-c permits a court to authorize the expenditure of funds for expert services upon a showing that such services are necessary. It has been held that such services are necessary where the defendant demonstrates that his or her sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be an important factor at trial (see, Ake v. Oklahoma, supra, at 83, 105 S.Ct. at 1096; People v. Vale, 133 A.D.2d 297, 299-300, 519 N.Y.S.2d 4). Here, there has been no such showing.
Unlike Ake v. Oklahoma, supra, and People v. Vale, supra, there is no evidence that, immediately after defendant's apprehension, he was found incompetent to stand trial, that he required psychiatric medication or that he had a history of psychiatric problems. The basis for counsel's motion for public funds to retain an expert was that he did not believe that a reasonable or rational person would kill another for $2,500 and that he wished to retain an expert to explore the possibility of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Holz
... ... Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366, 379, 408 N.Y.S.2d 429, 380 N.E.2d 257 [1978] ). Indeed, the two cases upon which the dissent primarily relies, People v. Kendrick, 128 A.D.3d 1482, 8 N.Y.S.3d 807 [4th Dept. 2015] and People v. Carpenter, 213 A.D.2d 747, 623 N.Y.S.2d 361 [3d Dept. 1995], address only the potential harmlessness of an undisputedly reviewable suppression determination. Neither Kendrick nor Carpenter examine the threshold question of whether the underlying suppression determinations were reviewable in the first ... ...
-
People v. Seeley
... ... Allen, 281 N.Y. 251, 259, 22 N.E.2d 360; see, CPL 610.10[2] ). The purpose of a subpoena is to produce evidence at a proceeding, and it is improper to use a subpoena as a discovery tool (Matter of Terry D., 81 N.Y.2d 1042, 1043-1044, 601 N.Y.S.2d 452, 619 N.E.2d 389; People v. Carpenter, 240 A.D.2d 863, 864, 658 N.Y.S.2d 542; People v. Wallace, 239 A.D.2d 272, 273, 658 N.Y.S.2d 843) ... Page 801 ... It is clear from the facts of this case, the moving papers, the opposition to the motion to quash the subpoena, and the subpoena itself that defendant is using ... ...
-
People v. Magliore
... ... State Police Laboratory, 182 A.D.2d 930, 931, 581 N.Y.S.2d 938 [3rd Dept.1992] [subpoena in DWI case for generalized category of records pertaining to a specific breathalyzer ampule lot and simulator lot denied]; see also, People v. Carpenter, 240 A.D.2d 863, 864, 658 N.Y.S.2d 542 [3rd Dept.1997] [in murder case where defendant sought to show a need for a psychiatric examination, subpoena denied for school records that defendant believed might exist regarding psychological, emotional or intellectual testing of him, but which he did not ... ...
-
Matter of Barrett v. Barrett
... ... , 157 A.D.2d 376, 378, affd 77 N.Y.2d 975) and is not to be used to expand the scope of discovery (see, Matter of Terry D., supra, at 1045; People v Carpenter, 240 A.D.2d 863, 864, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 902; Bostic v State of New York, 232 A.D.2d 837, 839, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 807). "A motion to ... ...