People v. Jones, 73 N.Y.2d 902 (1989)

In the absence of contrary evidence, a court will presume that a director’s designation of a psychiatrist and psychologist, instead of two psychiatrists, to conduct a competency examination was regular and in accordance with the statutory directive if the director believed the defendant might be mentally defective.

Summary

Defendant Jones was convicted of sexual abuse, and during sentencing, his counsel requested a competency examination. The director of Community Mental Health Services designated a psychiatrist and a psychologist, who found Jones competent. Jones’s counsel raised no objection at the time. On appeal, Jones argued the examination was defective because it didn’t involve two psychiatrists, as seemingly required by CPL 730.20(1). The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court would presume the director acted properly under the statute, which allows for a psychologist if the director believes the defendant may be mentally defective. Since Jones raised the objection for the first time on appeal, there was no factual record to review the contention.

Facts

• Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse.
• During sentencing, defense counsel requested a competency examination under CPL Article 730.
• The director of Community Mental Health Services designated a psychiatrist and a psychologist to conduct the examination.
• The psychiatrist and psychologist reported that the defendant was competent.
• Defense counsel did not object to the court adopting the report.

Procedural History

• The trial court convicted and sentenced the defendant for sexual abuse.
• On appeal from his conviction, the defendant argued the competency examination was defective.
• The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
• The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the designation of a psychiatrist and a psychologist, instead of two qualified psychiatrists, renders a competency examination defective under CPL 730.20(1).

Holding

1. No, because in the absence of contrary evidence, the court presumes the director acted in accordance with the statutory directive, which allows for a psychologist to participate in the examination if the director is of the opinion that the defendant may be mentally defective.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the presumption of regularity, stating, “In the absence of any contrary evidence, we presume that the director’s designation of a psychiatrist and a psychologist to examine defendant was regular and in accordance with statutory directive (Richardson, Evidence § 72, at 49 [Prince 10th ed]).” The court noted that CPL 730.20(1) requires two qualified psychiatrists but allows for a psychologist if the director believes the defendant may be mentally defective. The court reasoned that because the defendant raised the objection for the first time on appeal, there was no factual record to determine if the director believed the defendant was mentally defective. Therefore, the court would presume the director acted properly. The court effectively placed the burden on the defendant to raise a timely objection and create a factual record, preventing him from challenging the designation on appeal. This ruling highlights the importance of raising objections at the trial level to preserve issues for appellate review and to allow the trial court to develop a complete record.