Opinion
No. 9844–2006.
2010-07-6
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. O.J., Defendant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Kings County by ADA David Kelly, Brooklyn, Attorney for the People. Mental Hygiene Legal Services, Inc. by Ellen Rittberg, Esq., Lanielle Roach, Esq., Brooklyn, Attorney for the Defendant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Kings County by ADA David Kelly, Brooklyn, Attorney for the People. Mental Hygiene Legal Services, Inc. by Ellen Rittberg, Esq., Lanielle Roach, Esq., Brooklyn, Attorney for the Defendant.
NYS Office of the Attorney General, Litigation Unit by Nancy Hornstein, Esq., Asst. Attorney General, New York City, Attorney for Kingsboro Psychiatric Center.
MATTHEW J. D'EMIC, J.
On October 7, 2008, this defendant entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease for the murder of her nine year old son on November 13, 2006. The plea was taken with the approval of the court and district attorney who were in agreement with defense counsel that at the time of her actions, the defendant, as a result of her depression, lacked substantial capacity to understand their consequences (CPL 220.15).
As a result of her plea the defendant was committed to Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, a secure facility operated by the New York State Office of Mental Health on October 14, 2008. Upon being found no longer dangerously mentally ill, she was transferred to Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, a non-secure facility on October 20, 2009.
The Commissioner of Mental Health now petitions the court for a two year order of retention (CPL 330.20). Defendant seeks conditional release to the community.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In the pre-dawn darkness of November, 13, 2006, swallowed by the black void of major depression, the defendant responded to inner commands that she kill herself. She was under the care of a psychiatrist at the time and had, in fact, attempted suicide only four days earlier. She did not, however, seek hospitalization.
Unwilling to leave her son behind, she killed him and proceeded to jump in front of a subway train. She survived and those acts have resulted in her present confinement.
At the retention hearing, Dr. Manjula Vikas, an attending psychiatrist at Kingsboro, testified that the defendant suffers from major depression with psychotic features. She also testified that the illness is currently in remission. Dr. Vikas believes that in order to determine the strength of the remission, it is important that the defendant continue treatment in the hospital as she is granted increasing liberty, in order to see how she responds to the stress that might cause.
Defendant, who also testified, believes she is ready for release. She wants to work, can live with her mother and step-father and has other familial support. She is poised and well-spoken and wants to get on with her life while acknowledging the gravity of her actions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In deciding matters of this nature, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant suffers from a mental illness, defined by statute as “a mental illness for which care and treatment ... in the in-patient services of a psychiatric center ... is essential to such defendant's welfare ...” (CPL 330.20[1][d] ).
The plea in this case was entered less than two years ago, and she was transferred to a non-secure treatment center just eight months ago. The results of defendant's behavior coupled with her inability to understand the seriousness of her illness, at that time, even with a nursing degree, underscores the need to proceed cautiously.
The defendant has, indeed, made remarkable recovery, and hearing her testimony of the love she held for her child and her current insight into her depression, the court holds great hope that her conditional release is not far off.
Nevertheless, it is the court's opinion that although defendant's illness is in remission, the absence of symptomology has not been of sufficient duration to justify a change in diagnosis. The wiser course is to grant an order of retention. In light of the defendant's progress, however, the retention order is granted for one year retroactive to April 7, 2010.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.