New York Court of Appeals, 1981

People v. Fisher

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 12, 1981

53 N.Y.2d 907; 423 N.E.2d 53; 440 N.Y.S.2d 630; 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2464

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Commonwealth v. Gallagher (Pa. 1986)
People v. Burton (New York Supreme Court 1992)
People v. Mooney (N.Y. 1990)
People v. Taylor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Banks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
In re Sanchez (NYC Family Court 1988)
In re Nicole V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Drake (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Broun v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States (N.Y. 1986)
People v. De Sarno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
People v. Torres (New York Supreme Court 1985)
People v. Brooks (New York County Courts 1985)
In re Michael G. (NYC Family Court 1985)
People v. Benjamin R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
People v. Reid (New York Supreme Court 1984)
People v. Hughes (N.Y. 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Carlton, a psychiatrist, to testify as to the phenomenon of “repression”. This witness’ opinion did not go directly to the issue of the truth or falsity of Ms. Edwards’ story. In essence, it went to explain, with reasonable medical certainty, that it was possible for an individual to initially unconsciously block out certain facts or feelings, real or imagined, which follow in the train of a traumatic event, but to recall them at a later time. Specifically, the doctor did not venture an opinion,-directly or indirectly, as to whether the belated memory on which Ms. Edwards relied at trial was of fancy or fact or an admixture of both.

As to the defendant’s other contentions, we find them either to be unpreserved or without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, *910Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.