People v. Amaya

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Amaya

122 A.D.2d 888, 505 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59371

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 15, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 888 (People v. Amaya) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Amaya, 122 A.D.2d 888, 505 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.), rendered July 13, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

It is well settled that where conflicting expert testimony exists, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact (see, People v Wood, 12 NY2d 69; People v Budhu, 72 AD2d 587). The trier of fact may accept or reject the opinion of an expert witness (see, People v Bell, 64 AD2d 785), and, in the absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People’s expert, the trier of fact’s finding of sanity will not be disturbed (see, People v Wood, supra; People v Jandelli, 118 AD2d 656; People v Mainville, 59 AD2d 809). In the case at bar, no such flaw exists.

Under the circumstances of this case, the People satisfied their burden of establishing the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Silver, 33 NY2d 475), and the trial court’s verdict should not be disturbed. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.), rendered July 13, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

It is well settled that where conflicting expert testimony exists, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact (see, People v Wood, 12 NY2d 69; People v Budhu, 72 AD2d 587). The trier of fact may accept or reject the opinion of an expert witness (see, People v Bell, 64 AD2d 785), and, in the absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People’s expert, the trier of fact’s finding of sanity will not be disturbed (see, People v Wood, supra; People v Jandelli, 118 AD2d 656; People v Mainville, 59 AD2d 809). In the case at bar, no such flaw exists.

Under the circumstances of this case, the People satisfied their burden of establishing the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Silver, 33 NY2d 475), and the trial court’s verdict should not be disturbed. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 888, 505 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-amaya-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack