Opinion
6597-18
05-17-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Loren RICHARDSON, Defendant.
Westchester County District Attorney, Mount Vernon Branch Albert M. Annunziata, Jr. Esq., Attorney for Defendant, 700-720 White Plains Road, Suite 318, Scarsdale, New York 10583 Legal Aid Society of Westchester County, Attorneys for Defendant, White Plains, New York 10601
Westchester County District Attorney, Mount Vernon Branch
Albert M. Annunziata, Jr. Esq., Attorney for Defendant, 700-720 White Plains Road, Suite 318, Scarsdale, New York 10583
Legal Aid Society of Westchester County, Attorneys for Defendant, White Plains, New York 10601
Adrian N. Armstrong, J.
The defendant, Loren Richardson, is charged under five separate dockets with Assault in the Second Degree, Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree, Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree, and related charges.
On October 22, 2018 counsel for the defendant on the misdemeanor dockets requested a competency exam on the basis that the defendant was not fit to proceed to trial pursuant to Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law. On February 6, 2019, defendant's counsel on his felony docket also requested a competency exam. Accordingly, a hearing was held before this Court on May 2, 2019 and May 16, 2019, so that a determination could be made as to the defendant's competency to stand trial. At the hearing, the People called Dr. Shanan Segal, Dr. Michal Kunz and Dr. Jaclyn Koch.
The test for competence is set forth in CPL 730.10(1). "Incapacitated person means a defendant who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist his own defense." For purposes of due process, the Untied States Supreme Court has explained that the defendant must have "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding— ... and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him ( Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402 [1960] ).
Article 730 makes no mention of who has the burden of proving or disproving competency and by what standard. The Court of Appeals concluded that the burden should be on the prosecution to establish the defendant's competency by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v. Christopher , 65 NY2d 417 [1985] ), even though a state is free to place the burden on defendant to prove incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence (see Cooper v. Oklahoma , 517 U.S. 348 [1996] ). Further, "[w]here the hearing court is presented with conflicting evidence of competency, great deference will be accorded its findings" ( People v. Gordon , 125 AD2d 587 [2nd Dept 1986] ).
In People v. Mendez , 1 NY3d 15 [2003], the Court of Appeals held that the test for competence is set forth in CPL 710.10(1), which provides that an "incapacitated person" is defined as "a defendant who, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense" ( CPL § 730.10[1] ). The Court further held that "for purposes of due process, the United States Supreme Court has explained that the defendant must have sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding... and...a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him’ " ( id. at p. 19, citing Dusky v. United States , 362 US 402 [1960] ). Factors to be considered in determining competence include whether the defendant: "(1) is oriented as to time and place; (2) is able to perceive, recall and relate; (3) has an understanding of the process of the trial and the roles of Judge, jury, prosecutor and defense attorney; (4) can establish a working relationship with his attorney; (5) has sufficient intelligence and judgement to listen to the advice of counsel and, based on that advice, appreciate (without necessarily adopting) the fact that one course of conduct may be more beneficial to him than another; (6) is sufficiently stable to enable him to withstand the stresses of the trial without suffering a serious or prolonged or permanent breakdown" (see , People v. Picozzi , 106 AD2d 413, 414 [2nd Dept 1984] ). See also , People v. Valentino , 78 Misc 2d 678 [1974].
Here the prosecution has failed to carry the burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Conflicting reports and testimony was presented at the hearing with respect to defendant's competency. Two of the three psychiatrists found defendant an incapacitated person as a result of mental disease or defect lacking capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense. All three psychiatrists agreed that the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect. The area of disagreement centers upon the remainder of the statutory test, namely, the defendant's capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense. In the opinion of the Court, it finds the testimony of Dr. Kunz and Dr. Koch more persuasive than Dr. Segal who found the defendant competent.
Based upon the totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing, and after observing the defendant's behavior, this Court concludes that the People failed to establish defendant's competency by a preponderance of the evidence, and the defendant shall be held for a Final Order of Observation on the misdemeanor dockets, and held for a Temporary Order of Observation on the felony docket.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.