People v. Sanabria
151 A.D.3d 401
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- In 2011 defendant followed and threatened a woman with a ~7-inch kitchen/steak knife, demanded $12, took $20 and $20 more, then fled and was captured by bystanders; a knife was seen on the ground and cigarettes were recovered from defendant. He was tried and convicted of first‑degree robbery and sentenced as a second violent felony offender to 10 years.
- Defendant asserted lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (schizophrenia, auditory hallucinations commanding him to get cigarettes). Defense expert Dr. Goldsmith relied heavily on defendant’s self-reporting and opined defendant could not appreciate wrongfulness.
- People’s expert Dr. Hershberger concluded defendant was not psychotic at the robbery, disputed the self-reported facts, and testified defendant knew the act was wrong (hid the knife, ran away). Jury credited the People’s expert and convicted.
- Trial court admitted evidence that defendant had been recently imprisoned (not the underlying conviction) as relevant to the experts’ bases; the court limited prejudice with instructions and some redactions. Defense objections to limits on expert testimony and to juror inquiry rulings were overruled.
- On appeal the majority affirmed, rejecting claims of evidentiary error, denial of effective assistance of counsel, and infringement on the right to present a defense; a dissent would reverse based on (1) limiting the defense expert’s ability to explain doubts about a prior violent conviction (vacated on appeal but followed by an Alford plea) and (2) defense counsel’s voir dire disclosure and imperfect redactions prejudicing the trial.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior imprisonment evidence relied upon by defense expert | Probative to evaluate expert’s basis; imprisonment context explains decompensation after release | Admission of prison status prejudicial and should be redacted/obscured | Admitted references to imprisonment (not underlying conviction); probative value outweighed prejudice with limiting instructions; affirmed |
| Scope of cross‑examination of defense psychiatric expert about prior violent act/Alford plea | Permissible to probe whether such facts would affect expert’s opinion; answers limited to fact‑basis for opinion | Limiting follow‑up (preventing explanation of Alford plea and reasons to doubt prior conviction) infringed on ability to present defense | Majority: trial court acted within discretion; curative instructions adequate; no reversal; Dissent: restriction impaired defense and credibility of expert |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for voir dire remark and incomplete redactions | Defense counsel’s voir dire strategy could be reasonable; incomplete redactions were harmless/speculative | Counsel’s voir dire disclosure of a sexual incident and imperfectly redacted exhibits were unreasonable and prejudicial | Majority: record insufficient for CPL 440.10 review; alternative holding counsel effective; affirmed |
| Duty to question jurors about publicity of unrelated mass murder by mentally ill person | No meaningful similarity that would taint jury; no inquiry required | Publicity about mass murder by mentally ill man could bias jurors regarding mental illness defense | Majority: refusal to inquire was proper; no resemblance requiring inquiry; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. 1981) (evidence intertwined with expert basis may be admissible)
- People v Bradley, 20 N.Y.3d 128 (N.Y. 2012) (limiting instructions can mitigate prejudice from background evidence)
- People v Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) (standard for ineffective assistance review on direct appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705 (N.Y. 1988) (need for CPL 440.10 in expanded-record ineffective assistance claims)
- People v Moore, 42 N.Y.2d 421 (N.Y. 1977) (when juror inquiry is required based on external events)
- People v Shulman, 6 N.Y.3d 1 (N.Y. 2005) (jury taint inquiry principles)
- People v Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40 (N.Y. 1989) (due process right to present evidence to challenge credibility)
- People v Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005) (state standard for prejudice and meaningful representation)
- People v Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375 (N.Y. 2000) (preventing distorted impression from excluding explanatory evidence)