| People v LeFebvre |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09441 [45 AD3d 1175] |
| November 29, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v RICKY L. LeFEBVRE, Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Chantelle Schember of counsel), forrespondent.
Mugglin, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.),rendered March 6, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal mischiefin the third degree (two counts), resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration inthe second degree.
Following arraignment on an indictment charging a variety of offenses arising out of anincident of road rage on February 18, 2005, defendant served the People with a notice of intent tooffer psychiatric evidence at trial pursuant to CPL 250.10. Thereafter, by stipulation of theparties, County Court ordered defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination by a psychiatristor psychologist employed by the District Attorney. When defendant failed to provide theprosecution with any specific information regarding his psychiatric defense, the People soughtand County Court granted an order precluding defendant's medical experts from testifying at trialwith respect to any psychiatric defense. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of anumber of offenses and sentenced to a term of incarceration of one year in the county jail on eachcount to run concurrently. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. In addition to providing timely notice of an intention to offer psychological orpsychiatric evidence, a defendant is required to provide information sufficient to allow "theprosecution . . . to discern the general nature of" defendant's claimed mental diseaseor defect, [*2]thereby allowing the People to conduct their owninvestigation with respect to the issue (People v Almonor, 93 NY2d 571, 581 [1999];see People v Berk, 88 NY2d 257, 264 [1996], cert denied 519 US 859 [1996]).Here, defendant's notice only recited that, at the time of the incident, defendant was undermedical care and taking prescribed medicines which were mind-altering substances. We rejectdefendant's present contention that the information contained in his notice sufficiently outlines aclaim that the prescribed medicines prohibited him from forming the requisite state of mentalculpability to commit the offenses in the indictment. Since defendant was repeatedly admonishedto provide the prosecution with additional information in support of his notice, we find no abuseof discretion with regard to the preclusion of defendant's proffered expert testimony (seePeople v Miller, 108 AD2d 1053, 1056 [1985], lv denied 65 NY2d 697 [1985]).
Likewise, we reject defendant's claim that County Court's preclusion order violated his 6thAmendment right to present witnesses. A defendant's right to present evidence in the form oftestimony at trial is not absolute (see People v Brown, 274 AD2d 609, 610 [2000]).When asked to preclude evidence, a court is required to weigh the possibility of prejudice to theprosecution against the right of the defendant to present his or her case (see People vBerk, 88 NY2d at 266). Although preclusion is a drastic remedy which should be employedonly in the most egregious situations (see People v Kelly, 288 AD2d 695, 697 [2001],lv denied 97 NY2d 756 [2002]), a preclusion order will not be disturbed absent an abuseof discretion (see People v Almonor, 93 NY2d at 583; People v Aska, 91 NY2d979, 981 [1998]). Here, we discern no such abuse. County Court repeatedly warned defendant toprovide the additional information necessary to allow the prosecution to focus on its owninvestigation of defendant's claim. Defendant's failure to provide such information effectivelyprohibited the prosecution from adequately preparing to meet defendant's medical evidence.Under these circumstances, the prejudice to the prosecution outweighs the right of defendant topresent his evidence and, thus, no violation of defendant's rights under the 6th Amendmentoccurred.
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.