People v. Mainville

59 A.D.2d 809, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13887
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 27, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 809 (People v. Mainville) 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. Mainville, 59 A.D.2d 809, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered September 25, 1975, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. In his confession, the voluntariness of which is not challenged on appeal, the defendant admitted shooting to death a Jewish door-to-door salesman (who had been coming to defendant’s house for years) in retribution for the death of George Lincoln Rockwell. Qualified psychiatrists, who had made adequate preparation, testified for both the defense and prosecution on the question of sanity (see Penal Law, § 30.05). Where there is a serious flaw in the testimony of the People’s experts, the jury’s determination is set aside (see, e.g., People v [810]*810Higgins, 5 NY2d 607 [prosecution’s two experts did not examine defendant and one testified equivocally]; People v Slaughter, 34 AD2d 50 [prosecution’s expert examined defendant cursorily and failed to review crucial medical records]; People v Lee, 29 AD2d 837 [expert, retained on morning of his testimony, merely examined defendant’s records for 30 minutes]; cf. People v Silver, 33 NY2d 475; People v Thompson, 34 AD2d 1097; and People v Hari, 30 AD2d 1046 [no expert opinion to rebut defendant’s expert proof of insanity]). Absent such flaws, the jdry’s finding of sanity will not be disturbed (People v Wood, 12 NY2d 69; People v Rock, 49 AD2d 666, affd 42 NY2d 845). Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Demagall
114 A.D.3d 189 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Nickels
37 A.D.3d 1110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Bernstein
255 A.D.2d 388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Robson
197 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Amaya
122 A.D.2d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Parmes
121 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Bell
64 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.2d 809, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mainville-nyappdiv-1977.