People v Hickman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

People v Hickman 2015 NY Slip Op 32568(U) September 1, 2015 County Court, Wayne County Docket Number: 15-36 Judge: Daniel G. Barrett Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] /\t a Term of the County Court held in and for Lhe County of Wayne at the l lall of Justice in the Village of Lyons. New York on the l '1 day of September. 2015. PR ESl ~ t :T: Honnrn blt; Dunid G. Barrctl County Court J udgc COUN rv COL' R r OF rnr: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF W/\ YNE n lE PEOPI .E or Tl IE ST/\ TE OF NEW YORK -vs- DECISION AND ORDER REGAROJNG LATE FII .ING 01• DEFENDANT'S CPI. 250.10 (2) NOTICE Ind. No. l 5-36 JOSI n ·A S. HI CKMAN. Defendant /\ ppearancl.!S - People - /\DA Christopher Bokelman, Esq. Ddendant - APD - Andrew D. Correia, Esq. DdendanL. by his attorney, filed CPL 250.10(2) Notice, indicating Lhe intent to proffer psychiatrit.: C\ ick ncc at the trial of the Defendant currently scheduled for October 26. 20 IS. Said letter provideC. the nmnc of the retained psychiatrist on behalf of the O t::lendant and th<.11 in fact the psychiatrist would not be available for the trial date. Thi.! People o hj~t:t Lo the Defendant" s CPL 250.10(2) Notice in that it is late and beyond the thirty (30 ! days or arraignment as required. The People request the Court order a preclus ion of the proffering of 5aid psychiatric evidence on behalf' of the Ddendan l fo r his failu re: l)cfondan t. h~ 10 comply. hi s attorney. repl ies to People's response indicating CPL 250.2 (2) allows fc1r the latI.! fi li ng in tht: interest of justice and for good cause shown. The Defendant ofkrs that the issue of his mental health was known co the People at the onset or the i..:u~ e am.I i11 li1c1 the Odendant had testified at Grand .Jury at great lengths about his -\ - [* 2] mental hea lth history and his mental health issues on the day of the alleged crimes. That further the issue ol" l)elendanrs mentd health was placed on the record at the preliminary hearing at the Rose Tcm n Court. Mer.tat health records were being gathered in order to retain the psychiatric expert which was done on or about July 9. 2015. The Defendant' s request for adjournment of the trial was approximately three months before the trial was to begin and that tllcrcforc the People have an adequate opportunity to have the Defondant examined. as ~L·t fo rth in the statute. I°lh! Defend an I was arraigned before the Court on April 23, 2015. The Court was aware at the time or the alleged mental health issues of the Defendant. This matter was further discussed al a pre-trial on June 18. 2015 and then again on July 9. 2015. At the confen:ncc of July 9. :?.O 15 there was the return of the pre-pica investigation which set forth the Defendant'~ 1ncntal health hist0ry and his current treatment at the Canandaigua V/\ . l 11 addition. attached to the pre-p ~ ea investigation was a recent report regarding the Dcfendnnt"s cu rrent tn.:ntment and his curren1 medication regimen. I his was next before the Court on July 23. 2015. Defendant's counsel. Andrew Correia. was 1101 prc:-l:nt. Although th1!rc was a representative from the Public Defender's Office. that partieul;1r /\PD did not have the fam iliarity of the case Mr. Correia did. In any cvc1ll at said appt.:arnnce the People asked for a trial date and that was set by the Court for Octohcr 26. 2015 for a jury trial. I lowcver, it was noted on the record by APD Heather Vlaun.: that this was subject to Mr. C01Teia's schedule or anything else that she might be unav.iart: August or . Mr. Correia then fo llowed up with a letter refo1Ted to above dated >. 2015. ·1 he Legislature enacted CPL 250. l 0 to promote procedural fairness and ordcrli111.:~s. The statute is designed to create a format by which psychiatric evidence may bL' prep:1 rcd an<l pn.:sc111 managcably and efficiently. eliminating the element of cd surprisi.:. With 1 in mind the Legislature has formulated a procedure that depends upon lwt proper nntilicaiil)ll. adH:rsarial examination and preclusion when appropriate, People v Almonor. 93 l'\. Y 2d 57 1. -2- [* 3] In ud<lition to being timely a notice pursuant to CPL 250.10 must contain enough informuti on to en abk the prosecution and the court to discern the general nature of the alleged psych iatri<.: malady and its relationship to a pai1icular proffered defonsc. Unless the pros1.:<.:ution is so in lormed. it will not be able to conduct a meaningful psychiatric examination or its own. People v Muller. 72 A.O. 3d 1829. The decision whether to allow a defendant in the inrerest of justice and for good cause shown. lO scrv~ and tile a late Notice of Jntent to introduce psychiatric evidence is a discretionary (ktcrmi11ation to be made by the trial court, although the trial couit's discreti on is not nhso lutc: exclusion of relevant and probative testimony as a sanction for defendant· s (~1 i lun.: to t:omply with statutory notice requirement implicates a defendant's constitutional rigln to present witnesses in his own defense and the trial court must therefort· weigh this rig.ht against the resultant prejudice to the state from the belated notice. Pcopk \. lkrk. 88 N.Y. 2d 257. The couns nrc sl.'. usilive to the unfairness of completely precluding psychiatric testimony due lo n la l~ notice which cannot be cured by a short adjour11t1nent when the delay i:-. 11ot wilr111 or an attempt to gain a tactical advantage and the prosecution will not be pn.,:judicc<l. People v Oakes. I 68 A.D. 2d 893. E,·cn i r tht:rc \\ oultl have been ~.omc prejudice to the People caused by defense counsel"s delu~ in liling the notice. the san.ction of preclusion was unduly harsh in compari:->on. People\' l ~1irton, 156 A.O. 2d 945. The line 0r cast.:s cited by the Pc:ople and as determined by the Court's research indicate that the denial nomrnll~ or the request to file late notice to proffer psychiatric evidence is denied in c:1st:s where there is complete surprise regarding a psychiatric defense and/or 1hat suid proffer or psychiatric testimony on behalf of the defendant is either on the eve of tri;i l or during trial. ~ -.>- [* 4] In thi s case th1.:rc is no prejudice to the People in that the People were aware of the Defendan t" s mental hcnll h issues at the time of the preliminary hearing, during Defcndant ·s testimony al Grand Jury and as discussed in the pre-trial conferences in court a-; \veil as set forth in the pre-plea investigation. I he lettt.:r by Mr. Correia dated August 3. 2015 filing the late 250.10(2) Notice and requesting an udjournmc11t was approximntcly three months before trial. This case is not in any " a ~ undul~ dda~ cd in that the arra ignment of the Defendant was just on April 23, 2015. In addition the l'copk have plenty of time to examine the Defendant before trial and if' in foct a \\'ri1tc11 report is done on the Defendant that report must be shared by the Ddcnd:mt with the Peopl e. On the record '"'c find no legitimate claim on the part of the People of any resulting prejudice fi·om the ddny si nce it was clearly evident given the totality of the facts and circumsta nces herein. that the Defendant's sanity and his ability to form the requisite inlent will be a signi licnnt factor at tria l, People v Gracius. 6 A.D. 3d 222. A careful revic'' or the record n:n;als that the People have fai led to advance any claim or prejudice from th\.! dday. comcnding solely tha t CPL 250.10(2) Notice was beyond the requisite 30 day time period. In add ition there is nothing that suggests that the Defendant sought a strategic ad\'anwgc in tiling a late notice of intent or that the psychiatric defense is not viablc.1\:onk' .'\lk11 . ~9 Misc. 3d 1231. Tht.:rcl (m.: Lil~ Cou rt will allow the late notice on the conditions set forth below. The Lrial date or October 26. 2015 is hc:reby cancelled. This is before the Court on Septem ber 3. ~O I 5. / \L that time Court and counsel will discuss an appropriate time line and tht: \ Chcduk an~ appropriate matters. -4- [* 5] ·1 ht.:r~fon.: it i!' th..: Coun·s Decision and Order as follows: I. l'hc Dc.:kmJant must provide the People with an amended/supplemental CPL 250.10 Notice which conrnins enough information td enabJe the pro:-.c.:t:l< tion and the Cour1 to discern the general nature of the alleged p!:>) chiatric malady and its relationship to a particular, proffered defense no latcr thun 1hirly (30) day~ of the date of this Decision: Th1..: lkfendant must submit to a timely examination by a psychiatrist or licens1..:d psychologist de8ignatcd by the People, presumably within sixty (60) clays l'rom the People·s receipt of Defendant's amended/supplemental Cl'I 250.10 Notice. Failure.: or th1.: Ddcn<lant to comply with either of these conditions in a timely manner will n:sult in pn::clusion of psychiatric evidence at trial. Accordingly. the People·-.; Moti<H1 t1) Prc.:cl ude is denied. subject to Defendant's strict compl iance with the conditions proposed hy the Court. Thi s cons t itut~s the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: Scptcmbl"r I. 2015 Lvon:-.. N~'' York -5-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.