diminished capacity defense in New York

1985In People v Segal ( 54 NY2d 58 , supra), the very case relied upon by defendant, the Court of Appeals unequivocally recognized that proof of a mental defect other than insanity neither has the status of a statutory defense nor constitutes a complete defense in the sense of absolving defendant of responsibility for all his acts (e.g., Penal Law § 30.05).

1982Compare the recommendation of the Department of Mental Hygiene that the insanity defense be abolished and replaced by the diminished capacity defense (The Insanity Defense in New York, Report to the Governor by the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene, 1978), the counter proposal of the Law Revision Commission that the insanity defense be retained but that the diminished capacity defense be formally adopted by statute and added to our own law as a recognized defense short of full legal insanity (1981 Report of NY Law Rev Comm, pp 43-151), and the Legislature’s rejection of the'proposed

2006Finally, defendant’s assertion that his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a competency hearing and/or pursue a diminished capacity defense is also unpreserved for our review (see People v Gambaccini, 2 AD3d 1065 , 1066 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 739 [2004]) and, in any event, is lacking in merit for the reasons expressed above.

2006Finally, defendant’s assertion that his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a competency hearing and/or pursue a diminished capacity defense is also unpreserved for our review (see People v Gambaccini, 2 AD3d 1065 , 1066 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 739 [2004]) and, in any event, is lacking in merit for the reasons expressed above.

2005The defendant failed to establish that there were no strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s decision not to pursue a diminished capacity defense (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]), or that he was deprived of meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

2005Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 without a hearing (see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796 [1985]).

1988In People v Francabandera ( 33 NY2d 429 ), the Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of "whether defendant, suffering from retrograde amnesia so as to be unable to recall the events surrounding the crimes with which he is charged, is an 'incapacitated person’ within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (subd. 1) so as to be unfit to stand trial as the result of a mental defect which, he argues, deprives him of the capacity to assist in his own defense; and also whether the ruling that he is fit to stand trial which induced a guilty plea to a reduced charge, renders that plea involuntary thereby denying h

1988In People v Francabandera ( 33 NY2d 429 ), the Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of "whether defendant, suffering from retrograde amnesia so as to be unable to recall the events surrounding the crimes with which he is charged, is an 'incapacitated person’ within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (subd. 1) so as to be unfit to stand trial as the result of a mental defect which, he argues, deprives him of the capacity to assist in his own defense; and also whether the ruling that he is fit to stand trial which induced a guilty plea to a reduced charge, renders that plea involuntary thereby denying h

1988In People v Francabandera ( 33 NY2d 429 ), the Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of "whether defendant, suffering from retrograde amnesia so as to be unable to recall the events surrounding the crimes with which he is charged, is an 'incapacitated person’ within the meaning of CPL 730.10 (subd. 1) so as to be unfit to stand trial as the result of a mental defect which, he argues, deprives him of the capacity to assist in his own defense; and also whether the ruling that he is fit to stand trial which induced a guilty plea to a reduced charge, renders that plea involuntary thereby denying h

1984(See relevant discussion as to obtaining such reports at Crew, Criminal Discovery in NY State-Selected Issues [4th ed, Jan., 1983], p 7.) Immediately prior to trial, defendant’s intention to rely upon the diminished capacity defense was affirmed by the filing of a motion supported by legal memoranda which placed primary reliance upon People v Ford ( 102 Misc 2d 160 ).

1984The defense, commonly called the diminished capacity defense, is a relatively recent statutory expansion of the rather old heat of passion concept (People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288 , affd 432 US 197 ).

1984The defense, commonly called the diminished capacity defense, is a relatively recent statutory expansion of the rather old heat of passion concept (People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288 , affd 432 US 197 ).