People v. Segal, 54 N.Y.2d 58 (1981)
When a defendant introduces expert testimony to negate the element of intent in a crime, the prosecution has a right to rebut that testimony with its own expert, and the defendant’s refusal to submit to a psychiatric examination by the prosecution’s expert justifies striking the defendant’s expert testimony.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of perjury stemming from a nursing home fraud investigation. At trial, he presented expert testimony about a memory defect to negate the element of intent. The prosecution requested an examination by their own expert, which the defendant refused. The trial court struck the defendant’s expert testimony, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the defendant could not introduce expert testimony to negate intent while simultaneously denying the prosecution an opportunity to rebut that evidence with its own expert. This ensures fairness and maintains the integrity of the trial process.
Facts
The defendant, a vice-president of a grocery wholesaler, met with an undercover agent investigating nursing home fraud and discussed kickback schemes. Later, before a grand jury, the defendant testified he didn’t recall the schemes or discussing them with the agent. At his perjury trial, the defendant presented expert testimony from a psychologist and psychiatrist claiming an organic brain defect impaired his memory, making him unable to recall the meeting when he testified before the Grand Jury.
Procedural History
The defendant was indicted for perjury and convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. A dissenting Justice granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court’s decision to strike the defense expert’s testimony after the defendant refused to submit to an examination by the People’s expert.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant who introduces expert testimony to negate the element of intent can refuse to submit to an examination by the People’s expert, and if so, whether the court can strike the defendant’s expert testimony as a result.
Holding
Yes, because a defendant cannot introduce expert testimony on a mental condition to negate intent and simultaneously deny the prosecution an opportunity to rebut that evidence with its own expert. The trial court acted properly in striking the defendant’s expert testimony when the defendant refused to submit to an examination by the People’s expert.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on its prior decision in Matter of Lee v. County Court of Erie County, which held that a defendant raising an insanity defense waives their Fifth Amendment privilege regarding mental capacity and can be precluded from introducing expert testimony if they refuse to submit to a mental examination by the prosecution. The Court reasoned that this principle extends beyond statutory defenses like insanity to any situation where a defendant introduces expert testimony to negate an element of the crime, such as intent. The Court emphasized principles of fairness and the integrity of the trial process, stating that the People must prove every element of the crime, including intent. The court stated, “a defendant who proffers an insanity defense may hide behind the defense because of his privilege and thereby make the People’s burden of proving sanity insurmountable.” By introducing expert testimony about his memory defect, the defendant sought to prove he lacked the intent to commit perjury. The court concluded that the defendant could not simultaneously put the People to their proof regarding his mental capacity while denying them the opportunity to effectively meet that burden with their own expert evidence.