Opinion
July 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.).
The People gave the Grand Jury such instructions as were "necessary or appropriate" (CPL 190.25; see, People v Calbud, Inc., 49 N.Y.2d 389, 394-395), in view of the grand jurors' assurances that the instructions defendant claims should have been given were unnecessary because already heard by them earlier in their term (see, People v. Brown, 176 A.D.2d 155, 156, affd 81 N.Y.2d 798). Nor was it necessary for the motion court to review the earlier instructions, which dealt with relatively simple aspects of the charges (see, People v. Percy, 38 N.Y.2d 806, affg 45 A.D.2d 284).
The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a mid-trial competency examination. Despite counsel's good-faith representations that defendant had lost his ability to assist in his own defense and was suffering from memory lapses, the court relied on its own observations of defendant both before and during trial, including during his lucid testimony, and properly concluded that defendant's inability to assist in his defense was due to his cantankerous personality and not any mental disease or defect (see, People v. Russell, 74 N.Y.2d 901).
We have reviewed the contentions raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and find them inadequately preserved and without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.