People v. Amaya

• Decision Date: 15 August 1986
• Citation: 505 N.Y.S.2d 571,122 A.D.2d 888
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alvaro Rozo AMAYA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 571

505 N.Y.S.2d 571

122 A.D.2d 888

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alvaro Rozo AMAYA, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

August 15, 1986

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (David Bart, of counsel), for appellant. John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Garris R. Leisten, of counsel), for respondent.

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 N.Y.2d 69, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44, 187 N.E.2d 116; People v. Budhu, 72 A.D.2d 587, 421 N.Y.S.2d 17). The trier of fact may accept or reject the opinion of an expert witness (see, People v. Bell, 64 A.D.2d 785, 407 N.Y.S.2d 916), 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 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 962; People v. Mainville, 59 A.D.2d 809, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1012). 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 N.Y.2d 475, 354 N.Y.S.2d 915, 310 N.E.2d 520), and the trial court's verdict should not be disturbed.

LAZER, J.P., and MANGANO, BROWN and WEINSTEIN, JJ., concur.