People v. Bell
| Decision Date | 27 July 1978 |
| Citation | 407 N.Y.S.2d 916,64 A.D.2d 785 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward BELL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lawrence C. Conners, Rensselaer County Public Defender, Troy (Thomas J. O'Connor, Jr., Troy, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Wilcox, Rensselaer County, Dist. Atty., Troy (Robert A. Becher, Troy, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and KANE, STALEY, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County, rendered March 31, 1977, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of murder in the second degree.
On July 6, 1976 defendant shot and killed his former wife, Karen Bell, with a rifle. At his arraignment, defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (Penal Law, § 30.05, subd. 1) and served upon the People a notice of such defense (CPL 250.10). At trial, the defendant's medical expert gave as his opinion that defendant, at the time of the shooting, was suffering from a paranoid schizophrenia and, consequently, did not know the wrongfulness or the nature and consequences of his act. In response to this proof and in satisfaction of its burden of going forward and establishing defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Congilaro, 60 A.D.2d 442, 454, 400 N.Y.S.2d 409, 417-418), the People called two eminently qualified psychiatrists, each of whom, after a thorough review of defendant's medical records and personal interviews with defendant, gave an opinion that defendant was sane at the time of the killing.
It is, of course, the general rule that where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of sanity is for the jury (People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44, 187 N.E.2d 116). Further, the jury has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert (People v. Buthy, 38 A.D.2d 10, 12, 326 N.Y.S.2d 512, 515). This Court recently explained that where, as here, there is an absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People's experts, the jury's finding of sanity will not be disturbed (People v. Mainville, 59 A.D.2d 809, 398 N.Y.S.2d 1012).
Defendant's next contention, while not grounds for reversal, merits comment. On October 18, 1976 an Assistant District Attorney served a Grand Jury subpoena on defendant's uncle directing him to appear on October 20, 1976 to give testimony concerning the charges against defendant, when, in fact, defendant had been indicted on August 2, 1976. On October 20, the Assistant District Attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gallagher
...witnesses was a matter within the province of the jury (see, e.g., People v. Lancaster, 65 A.D.2d 761, 409 N.Y.S.2d 770; People v. Bell, 64 A.D.2d 785, 407 N.Y.S.2d 916; People v. Buthy, 38 A.D.2d 10, 12, 326 N.Y.S.2d 512; 1 CJI [NY] 7.13, p 280; Fisch New York Evidence § 432 [2d ed] ), and......
-
People v. Hicks
...N.Y.S.2d 267; People v. Amaya, 122 A.D.2d 888, 505 N.Y.S.2d 571; People v. Jandelli, 118 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 962; People v. Bell, 64 A.D.2d 785, 407 N.Y.S.2d 916). ...
- People v. Mayo
-
People v. Royce
... ... Krom, 91 A.D.2d 39, 43, 458 N.Y.S.2d 693, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 187, 473 N.Y.S.2d 139, 461 N.E.2d 276). The jury was free to accept or reject the expert testimony presented ( see, People v. Levan, 85 A.D.2d 779, 781, 445 N.Y.S.2d 324; People v. Bell, 64 A.D.2d 785, 407 ... N.Y.S.2d 916). Viewed in total, we find ample basis for the jury's evident conclusion that a viable waiver was established ... Finally, given the fact that defendant knew the apartment house was occupied and yet deliberately set the fire, we perceive no ... ...