People v. Traver
| Decision Date | 02 June 1972 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. David Bradley TRAVER, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Marshall L. Brenner, Poughkeepsie, for defendant.
Albert M. Rosenblatt, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie (Ira A. Pergament, Poughkeepsie, of counsel), for plaintiff.
The District Attorney moves for an order requiring a psychiatric examination of this defendant.
He also moves for an order directing he be supplied with copies of all reports and documents concerning the physical and mental examinations which had previously been made of the defendant pursuant to Sections 658 through 662 of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure. This portion of the District Attorney's motion is made pursuant to Section 240.20(4) of the Criminal Procedure Law.
David Bradley Traver, the defendant, was indicted for the crime of murder in violation of Section 125.25 of the Penal Law. The defendant served upon the People, pursuant to Section 250.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law, a notice of defense wherein he indicates he intends to rely upon the defense of mental disease or defect at the time of the incident as defined by Section 30.05 of the Penal Law.
The Court has made an in depth study of Article 730 of the new Criminal Procedure Law dealing with the question of mental disease and the qualifications and procedure by which a defendant can be examined in a criminal case. The Court examined Article 730 to determine how the current provisions differ from the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure as they relate to the question of mental disease or defect of a defendant at the time of the alleged crime.
It is clear when a defendant interposed the defense of insanity he could be required, by Court order, and upon motion of the District Attorney, to undergo a psychiatric examination under Section 658 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears the Criminal Procedure Law has continued the provisions of the old Code of Criminal Procedure concerning a defendant's competency to stand trial, but Article 730 makes no provision for a Court ordered examination to determine a defendant's mental capacity or mental state at the time of the alleged commission of the crime. Nor does Article 730 make any provision for a Court ordered examination when the defense of insanity under Section 30.05 of the Penal Law is raised although this was well defined in the old Code of Criminal Procedure. This failure to incorporate those provisions of Section 658 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law insofar as a District Attorney's right to an examination is concerned must have been an oversight on the part of the draftsmen of the new Criminal Procedure Law. The Court can find no clear line of authority as to whether it has the right to order a mental examination in such a case as this, but it would seem the best rule would be to permit an examination in the present case for the following reasons.
Section 30.05 allows a defendant to interpose a defense of mental disease or defect, and since mental disease or defect is classified under this section as a plain 'defense', the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the People. Since the People have this burden, the People could not sustain it unless they had the right to request a Court ordered psychiatric examination of a defendant. The People clearly had the right to move for a psychiatric examination under Section 658 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, and since they had the right under the old Code of Criminal Procedure, that right cannot be lost under Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law merely because there may have been an oversight in omitting this provision. Were the Court to hold otherwise it would defeat the purpose and intent of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Green
...is in the control of the defendant. This is not the case here since no motion for discovery by the defendant is pending . . ..' p. 164, 332 N.Y.S.2d p. 958. Clearly, under section 240.20(4) of the CPL, the People have no right to make an independent motion for discovery and, to this extent,......
-
People v. Segal
...the absence of statutory support (see, e.g., People v. Sullivan, 39 N.Y.2d 903, 905, 386 N.Y.S.2d 399, 352 N.E.2d 586; People v. Traver, 70 Misc.2d 162, 332 N.Y.S.2d 955).2 The People of course have no burden to disprove "affirmative defenses" (Penal Law, § 25.00, subd. ...
-
People v. Segal
...of Erie County, 27 N.Y.2d 432, 318 N.Y.S.2d 705, 267 N.E.2d 452, cert. den. 404 U.S. 823, 92 S.Ct. 46, 30 L.Ed.2d 50; People v. Traver, 70 Misc.2d 162, 332 N.Y.S.2d 955). A plea of insanity is an allegation of lack of criminal responsibility (Penal Law, § 30.05). A defendant who intends to ......
-
People v. Catti
...prosecution, almost all of the decisions hold that this motion must be made during the pendency of the defense motion, (People v. Traver, 70 Misc.2d 162, 332 N.Y.S.2d 955; People v. Rexhouse, 77 Misc.2d 386, 353 N.Y.S.2d 658; People v. Lacey, 83 Misc.2d 69, 368 N.Y.S.2d 655) or in response ......