People v. Gilbert
| Decision Date | 19 July 1984 |
| Citation | 103 A.D.2d 967,479 N.Y.S.2d 782 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rosemary GILBERT, Also Known as Sylvia Paige, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Feit & Schlenker, Albany (Dennis B. Schlenker, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, Dist. Atty., Albany (John P.M. Wappett, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered April 18, 1983, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree.
Defendant leased six typewriters, purportedly on behalf of the State University of New York, falsely representing herself to be an employee thereof. On May 7, 1982, defendant sold one of the typewriters for $850. She was subsequently indicted for the crimes of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree. Defendant then filed a notice of the defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (Penal Law, § 30.05). Following a nonjury trial, County Court rejected this defense and found defendant guilty as charged.
On this appeal, defendant contends that the People failed to disprove her defense of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. At trial, defendant presented three expert medical witnesses, all of whom had interviewed and/or treated defendant within the year prior to the incident in question. The sum of their testimony was that defendant had suffered from a manic-depressive type psychosis and that she had been treated with lithium from August, 1981 to April, 1982 to stabilize her moods. However, none of these witnesses could substantiate defendant's claim that she was not criminally responsible for her conduct, pursuant to the terms of section 30.05 of the Penal Law, on the date in question, May 7, 1982, because she was suffering from a mental condition which rendered her substantially unable to apprehend the "nature and consequence of conduct" or to understand that "such conduct was wrong". One of the three had not seen defendant since July, 1981. The second and third last saw her in February, 1982 and March, 1982, respectively, and both testified that she was asymptomatic the last time they saw her.
The People presented two expert medical witnesses. The first, Dr. Walter Osinski, had interviewed defendant numerous times since 1976 in his role as psychiatrist and consultant to the Albany County Jail. He disagreed with the defense witnesses' diagnosis of manic depression, saying that he had found no evidence thereof in the course of his experience with defendant. Further, he stated that he examined defendant shortly before and after the crimes in question, on March 12 and May 17, 1982, and at those times defendant exhibited no signs of mental illness. He concluded that she was not suffering from a mental condition on the day in question, which would diminish her capacity to appreciate the nature or consequences of her actions....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Demagall
... ... Stoffel, 17 A.D.3d 992, 993, 794 N.Y.S.2d 230 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 795, 801 N.Y.S.2d 816, 835 N.E.2d 676 [2005]; People v. Gilbert, 103 A.D.2d 967, 968, 479 N.Y.S.2d 782 [1984] ). Generally, “where, as here, there is conflicting expert evidence, the issue of a defendant's criminal responsibility is for the jury to resolve” ( People v. Tillman, 260 A.D.2d 656, 657, 688 N.Y.S.2d 276 [1999]; see People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d ... ...
-
People v. Armstrong
... ... Hargro, 144 A.D.2d 971, 534 N.Y.S.2d 274 (4th Dep't 1988) (prosecutor must be able to substantiate that People are in fact ready to proceed); app. den., 73 N.Y.2d 892, 538 N.Y.S.2d 804, 535 N.E.2d 1344 (1989); People v. Gilbert, 103 A.D.2d 967, 479 N.Y.S.2d 782 (3d Dep't 1984) (unsubstantiated statement of readiness cannot be used to make mockery of § 30.30); People v. Williams, 67 A.D.2d 1094, 415 N.Y.S.2d 155 (4th Dep't 1979) (unsubstantiated assertion of readiness, if allowed to excuse needless delay, could make ... ...
-
People v. Mitchell
... ... Robertson, 123 A.D.2d 795, 796, 507 N.Y.S.2d 267, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 716, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1043, 504 N.E.2d 411; People v. Parmes, 121 A.D.2d 658, 659, 508 N.Y.S.2d 50, lv. denied 68 NY2d 916, 504 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 501 N.E.2d 610; People v. Gilbert, 103 AD2d 967, 968, 479 N.Y.S.2d 782; People v. Buthy, 38 A.D.2d 10, 12-13, 326 N.Y.S.2d 512). Upon our review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the determination of the trier of fact on the issue of intent (see, People v. Merrill, 132 A.D.2d 573, 574, 517 N.Y.S.2d 553, lv. denied 70 ... ...
-
People v. McRae
... ... By contrast, at a suppression hearing the court is the fact finder and there is no risk of prejudicing the jury (see, People v Gilbert, 103 A.D.2d 967, 968; see also, People v Acosta, 241 A.D.2d 385, 386, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 846; People v Mays, 197 A.D.2d 361, 361). Furthermore, upon our review of the record, we do not find that the court's request for further proof so interfered with the proceeding that it created a tactical ... ...