 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
APPELLANT DEFENDANT TRIAL COURT MEMORANDUM COMPLAINING WITNESS JUDGE RESPONDENT APPELLATE DIVISION RAPE COMPEL SUPPORT MOTION VICTIM MEDICATIONS POWER MENTAL ILLNESS PROPENSITY RENDER OPINION MENTAL CONDITION CONTENTION MERIT CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES BELLACOSA SMITH LEVINE CIPARICK WESLEY CONCUR JUDGE TITONE |
PEOPLE & C., RESPONDENT, v. HARLEY H. EAREL, APPELLANT.
89 N.Y.2d 960, 678 N.E.2d 471, 655 N.Y.S.2d 859 (1997).
February 11, 1997
3 No. 19 (1997 NY Int. 14)
Decided February 11, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
James A. Sacco, for Appellant.
Kevin P. Dooley, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of rape in the first
degree (Penal Law § 130.35). Prior to trial, defendant moved to compel
the complainant to submit to a psychiatric examination. In support of
the motion, defendant's attorney submitted an affidavit premised only
on the assertion that, at the time of the rape, the victim had been
taking the psychotropic medications Prolixin and Lithium. Supreme
Court denied the motion, holding that defendant had not demonstrated a
compelling need justifying a psychiatric examination of the victim.
The Appellate Division affirmed on the basis that the trial court had
no authority to order a psychiatric examination of the complaining
witness.
We do not reach the question whether a trial court has the power to
order a complaining witness to submit to a psychiatric examination.
Assuming without deciding that the trial court has such power, the
defendant here failed to show record support for his claim that such
an examination is compelled to ensure a fair trial (see, People v
Passenger, 175 AD2d 944; see generally Note, Compulsory Psychological
Examination In Sexual Offense Cases: Invasion Of Privacy Or
Defendant's Right?, 58 Fordham L Rev 1257 (1990)). Moreover,
defendant's psychiatrist, utilizing complainant's psychiatric records,
testified at length concerning complainant's history of mental
illness, including her propensity to become delusional when not taking
her medications. The psychiatrist also indicated that he was able to
render an opinion concerning complainant's mental condition without
having examined her.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
