Legal Opinion

People v. Carter

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 11, 1973PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

Since the record amply demonstrates the fact that the defendant was addicted and that the sentencing court considered his request for treatment, strict and literal compliance with sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law was unnecessary. (See People v. Gordian, 39 A D 2d 861; cf. People v. Crafton, 31 N Y 2d 828.) As the Appellate Division declared in the Gordian case (39 A D 2d 861, supra), “ [t]he only purpose of the examination is to determine whether or not the defendant is an addict. If the court has determined that despite that fact a sentence to a penal institution is called for,…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. People v. HobsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Higby v. MahoneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. People ex rel. Seaman v. Warden, New York City Correctional Institution for MenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  4. People v. CastroNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
  5. People v. ToppingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API