From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Real

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 4, 1988
137 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

February 4, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dennis Edwards, J.).


Although the trial court was informed that defendant would testify that he was under the influence of marihuana mixed with "angel dust" when he committed these crimes, it refused to permit the defense to allow a psychiatrist to testify about the conduct of people who use such drugs.

This ruling effectively deprived defendant of a fair trial. Since the key issue for the jury's determination was whether defendant could have formed the required intent for the charged crimes, the court erred in precluding defendant from calling an expert to testify as to the effect of "angel dust" intoxication on his ability to form such intent (see, People v Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430).

Contrary to the trial court's assumption, defendant's proffered testimony would have provided a proper foundation for the expert's testimony both as to the general effects of marihuana and angel dust and as to his opinion as to how these drugs might have affected defendant's intent (People v Cronin, supra, at 433). The fact that defendant could not show, with certainty, that the drugs he took were marihuana and angel dust is of no moment. The Court of Appeals has held that there was sufficient foundation for the admission of such expert testimony where the only evidence of the quantities of drugs and alcohol consumed by the defendant came from the testimony of the codefendant, "who was too drunk to remember what he had had to drink the same night" (People v Cronin, supra, at 435). Accordingly, as the People concede, defendant is entitled to a new trial.

We also find, on the record before us, that the admission of testimony from the arresting officer concerning the recovery of a utility razor from defendant, which had not been used in the crimes charged, was erroneous. This testimony was irrelevant, "gravely prejudicial and seriously impaired the fundamental fairness of the trial" (People v Johnson, 61 A.D.2d 923, 924, appeal dismissed 47 N.Y.2d 124).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Ross, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Real

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 4, 1988
137 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Real

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDGAR REAL, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 4, 1988

Citations

137 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Mawhiney

e degree of certainty" ( People v. Donohue, 123 A.D.2d at 79, 510 N.Y.S.2d 722 ). The expert testimony would…

People v. Madera

We find, however, contrary to the trial court's holding, that the ability of narcotics, specifically cocaine,…