THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. EMANUEL SANTANA, APPELLANT.
80 N.Y.2d 92, 600 N.E.2d 201, 587 N.Y.S.2d 570 (1992).
July 7, 1992
2 No. 140
Decided July 7, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Stanley Neustadter, for Appellant.
Annette Cohen, for Respondent.
HANCOCK, J.:
Defendant was indicted for forcible rape and robbery, first degree
sexual abuse and other crimes for three separate incidents in Queens
in which he attacked different women at knifepoint. He pleaded not
guilty by reason of insanity. At the jury trial, the only issue was
whether defendant lacked the mental capacity to commit the crimes by
reason of mental disease or defect (Penal Law § 40.15). Defendant was
convicted on all charges, and the Appellate Division affirmed
unanimously.
In his appeal to our court, defendant argues that there should be a
reversal because of the trial court's restriction of his counsel's
right to consult with his own psychiatric expert witness in connection
with the cross-examination of the People's expert and concerning the
possible presentation of surrebuttal testimony. We agree and conclude
that there should be a new trial. For reasons which follow, however,
we do not agree with defendant that the indictments should be
dismissed for violation of the speedy trial rule (CPL § 30.30). Nor do
we find merit in defendant's contention that the trial court was
required to permit him to audio-tape the examination of his client by
the People's clinical psychologist.
I
At trial, defendant conceded that he had committed the offenses and
called witnesses only on the issue of his mental condition. The
principal defense witness was Dr. Stephen Teich, a psychiatrist, who
gave his expert opinion, based on several interviews with defendant,
that defendant was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Defendant, as a child, had been sexually abused by his brother. In
SNIPPETS:
Defendant was indicted for forcible rape and robbery, first degree sexual abuse and other
the only issue was whether defendant lacked the mental capacity to commit the crimes by
In his appeal to our court, defendant argues that there should be a reversal because of the
For reasons which follow, however, we do not agree with defendant that the indictments should
Nor do we find merit in defendant's contention that the trial court was required to permit
The principal defense witness was Dr. Stephen Teich, a psychiatrist, who gave his expert
Defense counsel, therefore, requested permission to audio-tape the examination for the
Defendant's trial, which took place in May 1987, was preceded by a prolonged period during
The period relevant to defendant's CPL § 30.30 contention begins on April 10, 1985 when the
Similar incompetency proceedings were also being conducted in New York County in connection
1986 the director of Mid-Hudson notified New York County Supreme Court that the hospital
On September 24, 1986, Mid-Hudson for the first time notified Queens County Supreme Court and
The Appellate Division agreed with the denial of defendant's speedy trial motion but did so
a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant,
Although the Queens County six-month commitment order expired on October 10, 1985, that
Defendant argues that the Queens County district attorney failed in his duty to monitor the
We hold only, under the unique circumstances of this case where defendant remained an
The majority nonetheless finds that the timing requirements of CPL 30.30 were not violated,
|
