People v. Jackson, 25 N.Y.2d 83 (1969)
A motion for change of venue based on pretrial publicity is properly denied where the publicity is largely objective, the jury selection process demonstrates a lack of pervasive prejudice, and the defense expresses satisfaction with the selected jury. Additionally, psychiatric expert testimony is admissible, even if based on hospital records not presented to the jury, provided the expert is thoroughly cross-examined, and incriminating statements made during a court-ordered psychiatric examination are admissible if the defendant raises an insanity defense.
Summary
The defendant, convicted of first-degree murder, appealed, arguing that pretrial publicity and the denial of a change of venue deprived him of a fair trial, and that errors were committed in the admission and exclusion of evidence regarding his sanity. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the pretrial publicity was not so prejudicial as to warrant a change of venue, especially since the defense expressed satisfaction with the selected jury. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of psychiatric testimony or statements made by the defendant during a court-ordered examination, given that the defense raised the issue of insanity and the statements were not directly incriminating.
Facts
The defendant was accused of murdering Noreen Jones, after having harassed her for three years due to her lack of romantic interest in him. Prior to the murder, the defendant assaulted Jones and her father, leading to an assault charge and probation. On the day of the shooting, the defendant threatened Jones before following her to the police station and shooting her multiple times in front of witnesses. He made incriminating statements shortly after his arrest. The defense pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Procedural History
The defendant was indicted for first-degree murder and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He was committed to Marcy State Hospital for a mental examination. The defendant’s motion for a change of venue was denied by the Appellate Division. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of first-degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, and the defendant appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant was deprived of a fair trial by reason of the publicity attending it and by denial of his motion for a change of venue.
2. Whether the court erred in admitting certain evidence regarding the defendant’s mental condition, and in excluding other evidence bearing thereon from the jury.
Holding
1. No, because the pretrial publicity was not so sensational as to excite local popular passion and prejudice, and the defense expressed satisfaction with the selected jury.
2. No, because the strict rules regarding expert psychiatric testimony had been satisfied, the psychiatric report was not improperly admitted, and the defendant waived his rights against self-incrimination and to counsel by requesting the mental examination and raising the insanity defense.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding the change of venue, the Court of Appeals emphasized that it must be shown that the defendant could not obtain a fair trial in the original county. Newspaper comment alone, even if extensive, is insufficient. The court highlighted the objective nature of the pretrial publicity, the thorough jury selection process where jurors asserted their impartiality, and the defense’s failure to use all peremptory challenges, indicating satisfaction with the jury. The court cited People v. Bonier, 189 N.Y. 108, 110-111, for the principle that a defendant cannot complain about the denial of a change of venue if satisfied with the jury.
Regarding the defendant’s sanity, the court addressed the admissibility of psychiatric expert testimony. Although prior precedent required the presentation of hospital records upon which experts relied, the court noted that CPLR 4515 modified this rule, allowing experts to state opinions and reasons without first specifying the data, subject to cross-examination. The court noted that the tests served simply to rule out organic brain damage. The court also rejected the argument that the psychiatrists’ report was admitted “by indirection,” finding no evidence of this. The court found no violation of the defendant’s right against self-incrimination or right to counsel because the defendant requested the mental exam and introduced the issue of his sanity, and the statements ultimately admitted were not incriminating. The court stated, “It would violate judicial common sense to permit a defendant to invoke the defense of insanity and foreclose the Government from the benefit of a mental examination to meet this issue.”