People v. Chandley

• Decision Date: 29 July 1982
• Citation: 453 N.Y.S.2d 919,89 A.D.2d 740
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David T. CHANDLEY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 919

453 N.Y.S.2d 919

89 A.D.2d 740

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David T. CHANDLEY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Department.

July 29, 1982.

Douglas P. Rutnik, Albany County Public Defender, Albany (James E. Banagan, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Sol Greenberg, Albany County Dist. Atty., Albany (George H. Barber, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SWEENEY, J. P., and KANE, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered December 27, 1979, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts each of the crimes of sodomy in the third degree and rape in the third degree.

Defendant, a psychiatric nurse at the Capital District Psychiatric Center (CDPC) in Albany, was indicted on two counts each of rape in the third degree (Penal Law, § 130.25, subd. 1) and sodomy in the third degree (Penal Law, § 130.40, subd. 1), committed against two women who were each alleged to be incapable of consent by reason of being mentally defective due to her emotional and mental state. Evidence at the trial established that each woman had a history of treatment for mental illness and first came into contact with defendant in his professional capacity when she sought mental health assistance from CDPC. Defendant's first point on appeal is that County Court erroneously denied his motion to suppress a confession on the ground that it was the product of an illegal arrest, there being a lack of probable cause. At the time of the arrest, the police had taken written statements from each of the complainants, had interviewed the head of CDPC, and defendant had responded to a telephone call purportedly for mental health assistance staged by a female State trooper by asking her whether he could come to see her at her residence and then had done so when she replied affirmatively. The victims' statements, whether or not read by the suppression court at the time of the hearing, taken with the foregoing additional evidence, provided a more than sufficient factual basis to sustain defendant's arrest. They identified defendant, the means by which contact was established, the depressed mental state of the victims, the perpetration of various sexual (including sadomasochistic) acts, and the fact that the victims were induced to cooperate because of defendant's professional status.

Defendant's second assignment of error is the court's denial of his request for an order permitting a mental examination of the victims by a defense psychiatric expert. We need not resolve this issue here, however, because of the clear inadequacy and untimeliness of the defense's application. Defendant earlier had made a timely formal ...