You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
,

BASED UPON JUROR MISCONDUCT, THE TRIAL JUDGE SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER DID NOT SUFFER FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; THE COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S RULING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, without any discussion of the facts or the law, reversed the Appellate Division (Matter of State of New York v Donald G., 2020 NY Slip Op 04716, Fourth Dept 8-20-20) and reinstated the trial court’s setting aside the verdict based on juror misconduct. The jury had decided defendant, a sex offender, did not suffer from a mental abnormality requiring civil commitment and should be released. The trial judge set aside that verdict and ordered a new trial. The trial judge’s ruling was here reinstated by the Court of Appeals:

Under these circumstances, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in ordering a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground of juror misconduct. Respondent’s remaining contentions have been considered and are without merit. Matter of State of New York v Donald G., 2021 NY Slip Op 01935, CtApp 3-30-21

 

 

​

/0 Comments/by
,

THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT, WHO HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT TO RAPE, ASSAULT AND OTHER CHARGES, SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER REQUIRING CONTINUED PLACEMENT IN A SECURE FACILITY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent constituted a danger to himself and others and should remain in a secure facility. Respondent had entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect to rape, assault, criminal possession of a weapon and endangering the welfare of a child. Supreme Court had found that respondent was no longer suffering from a dangerous mental disorder and placed him in a nonsecure facility:

To establish that a person suffers from a dangerous mental disorder requiring commitment in a secure facility, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the person suffers from a “mental illness,” as that term is statutorily defined (see Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 [20]), and “that because of such condition he [or she] constitutes a physical danger to himself [or herself] or others” (CPL 330.20 [1] [c]). * * *

Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s evidence and instead concluded that respondent no longer suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, implicitly crediting the opinion of respondent’s expert. However, the court’s factual findings were self-contradictory. Supreme Court credited petitioner’s expert’s diagnoses of respondent, finding, among other things, that respondent has bipolar disorder and a traumatic brain injury. These diagnoses, which cause impaired judgment and impulse control, contributed to the opinion of petitioner’s expert that respondent constituted a present danger to himself and to his female peers. Without explanation, respondent’s expert omitted the diagnoses of bipolar disorder and traumatic brain injury. In concluding that respondent no longer suffers from a dangerous mental disorder, Supreme Court relied upon an opinion that did not account for diagnoses that the court found respondent to have. Thus, the court never considered the impact that the diagnoses have on respondent’s behavior and present dangerousness.  Matter of James Q., 2021 NY Slip Op 01545, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

/by

A COMPETENT ADULT MAY REVOKE A HEALTH CARE PROXY; HERE PETITIONER’S MOTHER REVOKED THE PROXY BY EXECUTING A DOCUMENT REVOKING ALL DOCUMENTS OF AUTHORITY IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined that a document executed by Angela M., Mark M.’s mother, revoking all documents of authority in favor of Mark M. included a health care proxy:

“A competent adult may revoke a health care proxy by notifying the agent or a health care provider orally or in writing or by any other act evidencing a specific intent to revoke the proxy” (Public Health Law § 2985[1][a]). Angelina M. revoked the health care proxy prior to her incapacitation by executing a written revocation expressly revoking “any and all” documents of authority “of every nature[,] type[,] and description” in favor of Mark M. Contrary to Mark M.’s contention, the revocation is not limited to powers of attorney related to Angelina M.’s interest in real properties and certain limited liability companies and reflects Angelina M.’s intent to revoke all documents of authority in his favor, including the health care proxy. Also contrary to Mark M.’s contention, the revocation is clear and unambiguous, and the Supreme Court properly declined to consider the affidavit of the attorney who drafted the revocation … . Matter of Angelina M. (Mark M.), 2021 NY Slip Op 00649, First Dept 2-4-21

 

/by
, , ,

A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON A FINDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER (ASPD); REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION TO THAT EFFECT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT ADJUDICATING HIM A SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CIVIL MANAGEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury in this Mental Hygiene Law sex-offender civil-commitment trial should have been instructed that the anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) diagnosis cannot, standing alone, support a finding defendant has a mental abnormality as defined in the Mental Hygiene Law. The fact that the Pattern Jury Instructions do not include an instruction on this issue is not a justification for failing to give the instruction:

Mental Hygiene Law 10.03 defines “Mental abnormality” as a “congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct.” In Matter of State of New York v Donald DD (24 NY3d 174 [2014]), the Court of Appeals expressly held: “evidence that a respondent suffers from antisocial personality disorder cannot be used to support a finding that he has a mental abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), when it is not accompanied by any other diagnosis of mental abnormality” … . …

Where [as here] the jury is asked to parse through multiple psychological diagnoses, which include ASPD, the jury should be instructed that ASPD cannot be the sole basis for its finding that someone suffers from a mental abnormality. This is to ensure that the jury’s finding conforms to the applicable law. Absent such an instruction, the jury may mistakenly find mental abnormality based solely on ASPD without the requisite finding of an additional diagnosis of a condition or disorder that, combined with ASPD, may predispose one to commit a sex offense. Matter of State of New York v David S., 2020 NY Slip Op 06876, First Dept 11-19-20

 

/by
,

CYNTHIA G SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY CONFINED BASED UPON A FINDING SHE WAS MENTALLY ILL IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING; THE FINDING WAS MADE BASED SOLELY UPON CYNTHIA G’S BEHAVIOR IN THE COURTROOM; ALTHOUGH CYNTHIA G HAS BEEN RELEASED THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have ruled Cynthia G was mentally ill based solely on her behavior in the courtroom without holding a hearing. Although Cynthia G has been released from the involuntary confinement ordered by Supreme Court, the appeal was heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine because situation is likely to reoccur:

On June 20, 2019, Cynthia G. was involuntarily confined to the Hospital pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. On June 27, 2019, Cynthia G. made an application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 for a hearing on the question of need for involuntary care and treatment. While the parties appeared in court for the hearing, the Supreme Court did not hold the hearing. Rather, Cynthia G. was escorted out of the courtroom based on her behavior, which included “yelling and screaming,” acting “verbally aggressive,” and making “threatening movements.” Over the objection of Cynthia G.’s counsel, the court determined that it could not proceeded with a hearing due to Cynthia G.’s behavior. The court indicated that it would deny Cynthia G.’s application for release, finding that her courtroom behavior in and of itself constituted clear and convincing evidence that she suffered from a mental illness which was likely to result in serious harm to herself or others.

By order dated July 2, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Cynthia G.’s application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 to compel the Hospital to release her from involuntary confinement. …

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in failing to hold a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31(c), and in determining, in effect, that Cynthia G. was mentally ill, in need of further care or treatment, and posed a substantial threat of physical harm to herself or others, without taking any testimony or evidence by either Cynthia G. or the Hospital … . Matter of G., 2020 NY Slip Op 06525, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

/by
, , ,

RESPONDENT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE JULY 2015 MENTAL HYGIENE ARTICLE 10 TRIAL; COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN NOT REQUESTING A FRYE HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE OSPD DIAGNOSIS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A FRYE HEARING BASED UPON WHAT WAS KNOWN ABOUT THE DIAGNOSIS AT THE TIME OF THE 2015 TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, remitting the matter for a Frye hearing, determined respondent was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in the July 2015 Mental Hygiene Article 10 trial because counsel did not request a Frye hearing on the validity of the “other specific paraphilic disorder (nonconsent)” (OSPD) diagnosis. It was not until just after the July 2015 trial that courts recognized it was an abuse of discretion to deny a Frye hearing regarding OSPD, but there was a substantial amount of literature calling the diagnosis into question at the time of the trial:

When evaluating whether counsel’s failure to request a pretrial Frye hearing in this case constituted ineffective assistance, counsel’s posttrial motion practice sheds light on what counsel knew, or should have known, prior to trial about the acceptance of paraphilic disorders. Counsel filed a posttrial motion, apparently at respondent’s urging, to preclude from the dispositional hearing evidence of OSPD (nonconsent) and other paraphilic disorders by any name. In his motion papers, counsel not only cited to several of the foregoing trial court cases that had been recently issued, but also annexed several scientific articles from 2014, 2011 and 2008 that highlight the controversial nature and forensic misuse of paraphilic disorders generally or outright reject PNOS (nonconsent) or OSPD (nonconsent) as diagnoses reliable enough for the courtroom. At least one of these articles, as well as counsel’s cross-examination of [an expert] at trial, reveal that counsel was at least generally aware that defined nonconsent paraphilias or paraphilic disorders had been rejected for inclusion in various versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual … . * * *

… [H]ad counsel been successful at a pretrial Frye hearing in precluding consideration of OSPD (nonconsent), it is possible that respondent could have had the petition dismissed before trial … . … In other words, counsel “had everything to gain and nothing to lose” by challenging OSPD (nonconsent) in a Frye hearing … . … [T]his single failing deprived respondent of the effective assistance of counsel … . Accordingly, we hold the appeal … in abeyance and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a posttrial Frye hearing to consider the reliability of OSPD (nonconsent) based on the information that was available prior to the July 2015 trial, and to report back on its findings … . Matter of State of New York v Kenneth II, 2020 NY Slip Op 05980, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

/by
, ,

TWO PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN APPELLANT’S MENTAL HYGIENE LAW CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial in this Mental Hygiene Law civil commitment proceeding, determined two unreliable diagnoses were admitted in evidence. The matter had been sent back for a Frye hearing and Supreme Court issued a report finding the diagnoses are not accepted in the psychological community:

In June 2013, the State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of the appellant. Two psychologists evaluated the appellant at the State’s request and issued reports and testified that they diagnosed the appellant as suffering from, among other things, paraphilia not otherwise specified (nonconsent) (hereinafter PNOS [nonconsent]) and other specified paraphilic disorder (biastophilia or nonconsent), with sexually sadistic traits in a controlled environment (hereinafter OSPD [biastophilia or nonconsent] with sexually sadistic traits). * * *

… [T]he record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the State failed to establish that the diagnoses of PNOS (nonconsent) and its successor diagnosis, OSPD (nonconsent), are generally accepted in the psychiatric and psychological communities. The evidence at the Frye hearing established that the diagnoses were repeatedly rejected for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter DSM), and that no consensus on the validity of the diagnoses had been reached subsequent to the publication of the latest edition of the DSM in 2013. There was no clear definition or criteria for the diagnoses. Accordingly, the court erred in admitting evidence of the PNOS (nonconsent) and OSPD (nonconsent) diagnoses at the appellant’s trial. Matter of State of New York v Ronald S., 2020 NY Slip Op 04845, Second Deptp 9-2-20

 

/by
,

ALTHOUGH KERRY K WAS ORDERED RELEASED UNDER STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT PURSUANT TO THE FIRST MENTAL HYGIENE LAW CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL, AFTER KERRY K’S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL HE WAS PROPERLY ORDERED RE-CONFINED PENDING THE SECOND TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined Kerry K was properly ordered re-confined pending a retrial in this Mental Hygiene Law civil commitment proceeding. In the first trial Kerry K was not found to be a dangerous sex offender and was ordered released under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). Kerry K appealed the finding that he suffered from a mental abnormality. The Second Department reversed and ordered and new trial. The issue here was whether Kerry K could be re-confined while awaiting re-trial:

On appeal, Kerry K. contends that since the Supreme Court has already found, after a dispositional hearing held in 2015, that he was not a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.03[e]; 10.07[f]), there is no statutory requirement—and no logical reason—for him to be re-confined pending his retrial based on the stale 2013 probable cause determination, and that he is, in effect, being punished for having successfully prosecuted his prior appeal. Alternatively, to the extent pretrial confinement is statutorily mandated, Kerry K. contends that the statute, as applied to him, violates his constitutional right to due process of law.

The State counters that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06(k) requires pretrial detention upon a finding of probable cause, and since this Court’s decision on the prior appeal merely reversed the June 25, 2015 order and underlying finding of mental abnormality and ordered a new trial, without disturbing the Supreme Court’s 2013 probable cause finding, it follows that Kerry K. must be re-confined pending retrial. Moreover, the State contends that Kerry K.’s claim that the pretrial detention provision of the Mental Hygiene Law is unconstitutional as applied to him lacks merit … . We find that the State’s contentions have merit. Matter of State of New York v Kerry K.,2020 NY Slip Op 04844, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

/by
,

THE JURY FOUND THE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER DID NOT SUFFER FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY WHICH AFFECTED HIS ABILITY TO CONTROL HIS BEHAVIOR AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO RELEASE; UPON THE STATE’S MOTION THE VERDICT WAS SET ASIDE; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED FINDING THAT THE STATE WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY ALLEGED JUROR MISCONDUCT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the sex offender civil management verdict, which found defendant did not suffer from a mental abnormality and was therefore entitled to release, should not have been set aside. The state argued the jury foreperson’s telling the jury that, according to the foreperson’s father, “if inmates wanted to do something in prison they could do it” constituted jury misconduct. The remark was relevant to the expert testimony about the ways an inmate can act out sexually. The defendant argued he had not been cited for sexual misbehavior during his 30 years in prison, so the evidence he could have acted out was relevant to his ability to control his behavior:

… [W]e conclude that petitioner [the state] was not prejudiced by the foreperson’s failure to disclose during voir dire that his father previously worked as a correction officer… . We note that several of the jurors in this case either worked in prison or had close relations who worked as correction officers or in law enforcement. Neither party seems to have considered that to have been a disqualifying attribute because those jurors were selected to serve on the jury. Indeed, because the trial was held in the shadow of Auburn Correctional Facility, it would have been difficult for the parties to select 12 qualified jurors with no connection to the prison. Petitioner’s attorney was well aware of that fact and seized upon it during summation, urging the jurors to draw upon their knowledge of the internal workings of prisons in order to decide the case. Petitioner had every reason to believe that a jury packed with prison employees and their relations would likely return a verdict unfavorable to the convicted offender. Petitioner cries foul only because its strategy backfired. Matter of State of New York v Donald G., 2020 NY Slip Op 04716, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/by
,

ALTHOUGH AURELIA S WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, THE POWERS AWARDED THE GUARDIAN WERE TOO BROAD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the powers awarded to the guardian of the incapacitated person, Aurelia S, were too broad:

… “[T]he determination of incapacity . . . shall consist of a determination that a person is likely to suffer harm because” (1) “the person is unable to provide for [his or her] personal needs and/or property management” and (2) “the person cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b] …). In reaching its determination, the court shall give primary consideration to the functional level and functional limitations of the person (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[c]). Significantly, any guardian appointed shall be granted “only those powers which are necessary to provide for personal needs and/or property management of the incapacitated person in such a manner as appropriate to the individual and which shall constitute the least restrictive form of intervention” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2]).

… [T]he broad powers granted to the appointed guardian are inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the guardian be granted “only those powers which are necessary” and “which shall constitute the least restrictive form of intervention” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2] … ). Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court should have appointed a guardian only to manage Aurelia S.’s property and financial affairs, which shall have the following limited powers: (1) apply for, establish, and maintain eligibility for the maximum amount of government and private benefits; (2) marshal and manage income and assets; (3) enter into contracts, subject to prior court approval; (4) invest funds with the same authority as a trustee pursuant to EPTL 11-2.2; and (5) investigate any misappropriation of funds of Aurelia S. and take appropriate action. Matter of Aurelia S., 2020 NY Slip Op 04560, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy