SEARS V. COOLIDGE
180 N.E.2d 563 (1952)


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed a decision from the County Court of Queens County (New York) that convicted him of the crime of murder in the first degree. Defendant had been sentenced to death.

FACTS: Provisions in a trust agreement provided that the trust was to be distributed in equal shares among his issue then living Distribution was to take place upon whichever should happen first, the death of the last survivor of those of his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren that should be living at his death, or the attainment of 50 years by the youngest surviving grandchild of his who shall be living at his death The second event happened first Appellants contend that the settlor reserved a power which is the same as a special power of appointment and that the validity of the remainders must be determined in the light of the facts existing at his death when it was known that only his grandchildren had been lives in being at the time the trust was created This is known as the second look doctrine

ISSUE: Does the doctrine of second look have no place in reading original limitations in default of appointment which were capable of examination when created and which should retain the same meaning throughout?

RULE OF LAW: The doctrine of second look has a place in reading original limitations in default of appointment which were capable of examination when created

ANALYSIS: The decedent's body was found in the front seat of an automobile. The cause of death was multiple fractures of the skull produced by a blunt, heavy instrument. A hatchet with traces of blood on it was found on the sidewalk near the parked car. The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did slay the victim. However, defendant's sole defense was predicated on the theory of insanity. In reversing defendant's conviction for first degree murder and ordering a new trial, the court noted that defendant's expert witness, a physician, testified that he had seen defendant on three separate occasions prior to the trial, that defendant had a history of syphilitic infection, and that there was evidence of the infection still in defendant's brain. Because the expert witness had given the previous testimony, including electroencephalograph tracings, it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to allow him to testify directly as to defendant's mental condition at the time of the examination.