People v. Campanella

• Citation: 100 A.D.3d 1420,953 N.Y.S.2d 786,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07483
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Linda CAMPANELLA, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 09 November 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 1420
953 N.Y.S.2d 786
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07483

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Linda CAMPANELLA, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 9, 2012.

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Susan C. Ministero of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

[100 A.D.3d 1420]Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1] [intentional murder] ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish defendant's intent to kill the victim ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Moreover, viewing the evidence in light of the element of intent as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict with respect to that element is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court did not err in permitting the Medical Examiner to testify regarding the victim's cause of death, i.e., that the

[953 N.Y.S.2d 787]

victim died from complications resulting from a stab wound to the abdomen ( see People v. Odell, 26 A.D.3d 527, 529, 808 N.Y.S.2d 830,lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 760, 819 N.Y.S.2d 886, 853 N.E.2d 257;People v. Klosin, 281 A.D.2d 951, 951–952, 725 N.Y.S.2d 478,lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 864, 730 N.Y.S.2d 38, 754 N.E.2d 1121;see also People v. McCart, 157 A.D.2d 194, 197, 555 N.Y.S.2d 954,lv. denied76 N.Y.2d 861, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 561 N.E.2d 900). “It is axiomatic that [100 A.D.3d 1421]expert testimony is admissible where, as here, the conclusions drawn from the facts depend upon professional knowledge not within the ken of the ordinary juror” ( Odell, 26 A.D.3d at 529, 808 N.Y.S.2d 830). Indeed, expert medical testimony generally is required to establish that the defendant's conduct was a cause of death ( see People v. Eberle, 265 A.D.2d 881, 882, 697 N.Y.S.2d 218;McCart, 157 A.D.2d at 197, 555 N.Y.S.2d 954).

Defendant's further contention that the court erred in allowing the Medical Examiner to testify that the victim's death was a homicide is not preserved for our review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, although we note that the People correctly concede that “it was error to allow the [Medical Examiner] to ... opine that the death was a homicide, since ‘[s]uch characterization improperly invaded the province of the jury’ ” ( People v. Heath, 49 A.D.3d 970, 973, 853 N.Y.S.2d 400,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 959, 863 N.Y.S.2d 143, 893 N.E.2d 449;see People v. Lluveres, 15 A.D.3d 848, 849, 789 N.Y.S.2d 371,lv. denied5...