Opinion ID: 783829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence Concerning Harris's Competence at the Time of Trial

Text: 45 Harris's ability to comprehend the proceedings and to assist in his own defense was raised again at trial, but not in the context of a request for a competence hearing. On January 3, 1985, the second day of jury selection, the court addressed the government's application, pursuant to People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 314 N.E.2d 413, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849 (1974), to be permitted to inquire into Harris's prior convictions and arrests in the event Harris chose to testify at trial. During the course of the hearing on this motion, Harris's counsel questioned the accuracy and sufficiency of the government's records concerning Harris's prior convictions. The trial court noted that, under Sandoval, the defendant bears the burden of inform[ing] the Court of prior convictions and misconduct which might unfairly affect him as a witness in his own behalf, and demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of the admission of evidence thereof for impeachment purposes would so far outweigh the probative worth of such evidence on the issue of credibility as to warrant its exclusion. Id. at 512. In response, Harris's counsel stated: 46 Well, I don't object to [the idea that Harris bears the burden of proof], Judge, except I would rely, you know, I have a defendant here, Judge, with, I think, your Honor said, you know, a modicum of intelligence. He has a 69 I.Q. He's very inarticulate, Judge. In addition to that, he has a bullet in his head at this moment in time. I tried to speak with him previously about these prior convictions. I've spoken to him a number of times about them and he just doesn't recall or recollect, and as in this past matter that I just raised a moment ago, his ability to communicate what transpired is sorely lacking. Id. at 512-13. The trial court responded: 47 I'm not suggesting that some of these circumstances are incorrect that you have asserted. I just don't have and haven't made a finding of any sort about the I.Q. situation because that does go back some years, that reference in the Hartford Public School system. But I understand your position .... 48 Id. at 513. Shortly thereafter, the trial court granted Harris's counsel a continuance with respect to the government's Sandoval motion, so that Harris's counsel could speak with Harris's family and otherwise research Harris's prior convictions. Id. at 515-16. 49 The next day, at the end of jury selection, the trial judge took up the government's Sandoval motion again. During the course of the hearing, Harris's counsel repeatedly stated that neither Harris nor his parents were able to recall the details of most of Harris's prior convictions with enough specificity to allow Harris's counsel to challenge those convictions properly. See, e.g., id. at 677 (I've tried to get information from this Defendant about his prior record and very honestly, your honor, the Defendant cannot elucidate or carry on a conversation to the extent that he remembers anything about these prior acts.); id. at 678 (noting that Harris confirmed to some extent the limited information that his mother was able to provide, but also noting that Harris had a very substantial drinking and drug problem for many, many years). 50 Prior to rendering his decision, the trial judge observed: 51 ... [N]otwithstanding the arguments advanced, I too have had an opportunity during the course of the various proceedings and indeed the proceeding today and yesterday and the day before and a very important aspect of the trial of any criminal action, I've had an opportunity not only to observe the fact that you [, Harris's trial counsel,] have done a fine job ..., but I have seen you work very hard for your client and I think from an observation standpoint, most ably for your client. I think he's participated with you in the jury selection.... [T]hat's my own observation 52 App. 680-81. Thereafter, the following exchange occurred between Harris's counsel and the trial judge: 53 [Harris's counsel]: Judge, ... most respectfully I know you can't hear the conversation that Mr. Harris and I are having — 54 THE COURT: But I can see facial expressions and I can see the interest that Mr. Harris expresses which I think is commendable. 55 [Harris's counsel]: You may recall, Judge, on the first day of jury selection we had a paralegal sitting between myself and Mr. Harris. She and I are both prepared to state for the record, Judge, that Mr. Harris has offered absolutely no assistance in jury selection because he's been unable to do so. 56 His response — 57 THE COURT: Then why have you asked — 58 [Harris's counsel]: — because out of curiosity — 59 THE COURT: — opportunity to discuss things with your client? 60 [Harris's counsel]: — out of curiosity, Judge, and in response to my professional obligations, I have turned to Mr. Harris and I asked Mr. Harris what about this juror, and Mr. Harris would utter forth a grunt or something of a reasonable facsimile which makes absolutely no comprehensible sense to me. 61 Just so your Honor is aware of that. 62 THE COURT: Does that have a bearing on the Sandoval ruling? 63 [Harris's counsel]: Well, Judge, it does to the extent that I cannot get any information from Mr. Harris about his prior offenses. 64 THE COURT: If you will pardon me and I mean no disrespect and no harm — 65 [Harris's counsel]: I understand. 66 THE COURT: — I think that the observation that you made and the context of which we're at now are improperly placed. That's merely an observation by the Court. We are concerned with a Sandoval ruling. I've made some observations and I'm prepared to accept the fact that at the present time I've seen no evidence to the contrary to indicate to my satisfaction certainly that Mr. Harris can't participate with you, cooperate effectively and also aid you in the trial of this action. 67 Id. at 682-84. After allowing the parties an opportunity to make final arguments, the trial judge ruled on the government's Sandoval motion. Largely adopting Harris's position, the trial judge held that the government could only inquire into one of Harris's prior convictions. 68 At no point during the hearing on the Sandoval issue did Harris's counsel renew his motion for a competency hearing. After the Sandoval hearing, the competency issue was not mentioned again at trial. 3 69