People v. Enchautegui
Decision Date | 11 December 1989 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Domingo ENCHAUTEGUI, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Fallon, Walden, for appellant.
Francis D. Phillips II, Dist. Atty., Goshen (John Goldsmith, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and EIBER, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (King, J.), rendered May 29, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant stands convicted of the fatal stabbing of his estranged wife Rita Enchautegui and of an assault upon Wilfredo Rivera. The defenses at trial were lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect (Penal Law former § 30.05[1], now § 40.15[1] and justification (Penal Law § 35.15). The defendant claimed that the stabbing of Rivera and the first two stab wounds inflicted upon his wife were in self defense and that the remaining stab wounds were inflicted upon his wife while he was in the throes of an epileptic seizure. The defendant's expert witness testified that the defendant was suffering from an epileptic seizure that reached "full blown proportions" at the time he killed his wife and, therefore, he was not responsible for his actions. The People's medical expert ruled out the diagnosis of the defendant's expert and diagnosed that the defendant was suffering from an "isolated explosive disorder" at the time of the subject incident. The People's expert testified that the defendant had substantial capacity to know and appreciate the nature and consequences of his conduct and that his conduct was wrong.
As a general rule, where conflicting expert testimony is presented at trial, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact, which has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert (see, People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 77, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44, 187 N.E.2d 116; People v. Briecke, 143 A.D.2d 1025, 533 N.Y.S.2d 584). Where, as here, there is an absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, the resolution of the trier of fact of the issue of sanity will not be disturbed (see, e.g., People v. Golpe, 134 A.D.2d 449, 450, 521 N.Y.S.2d 71; People v. Hicks, 125 A.D.2d 332, 509 N.Y.S.2d 62; People v. Parmes, 121 A.D.2d 658, 659, 504 N.Y.S.2d 50). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Smith
... ... James, 191 A.D.2d 957, 958, 594 N.Y.S.2d 499, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 720, 602 N.Y.S.2d 817, 622 N.E.2d 318, cert. denied 510 U.S. 1077, 114 S.Ct. 891, 127 L.Ed.2d 85; People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461, 548 N.Y.S.2d 567, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 787, 559 N.Y.S.2d 992, 559 N.E.2d 686). When a defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, this Court must determine, based on an independent review of all the credible evidence, whether a different finding ... ...
-
People v. Demagall
... ... 324, 340, 110 N.E. 945 [1915]; People v. Stoffel, 17 A.D.3d at 993, 794 N.Y.S.2d 230), and we will intervene only when there is a “ ‘serious flaw’ in the testimony offered by the People's expert” ( People v. Tillman, 260 A.D.2d at 657, 688 N.Y.S.2d 276, quoting People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461, 461, 548 N.Y.S.2d 567 [1989], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 787, 559 N.Y.S.2d 992, 559 N.E.2d 686 [1990]; see People v. Irizarry, 238 A.D.2d 940, 941, 661 N.Y.S.2d 147 [1997], lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 894, 662 N.Y.S.2d 437, 685 N.E.2d 218 [1997]; People v. Justice, 173 A.D.2d 144, 146, ... ...
-
People v. Williams
... ... Hull, 162 A.D.2d 550, 556 N.Y.S.2d 741; People v. Ludwigsen, 159 A.D.2d 591, 552 N.Y.S.2d 450; People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461, 548 N.Y.S.2d 567; People v. Briecke, 143 A.D.2d 1025, 533 N.Y.S.2d 584; People v. Bruetsch, 137 A.D.2d 823, 525 N.Y.S.2d ... 287; People v. Hicks, 125 A.D.2d 332, 509 N.Y.S.2d 62; People v. Amaya, 122 A.D.2d 888, 505 N.Y.S.2d 571). In the case at bar, no such flaw exists ... ...
-
People v. Moss
... ... On the basis of all of the evidence at trial, the jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant failed to sustain his burden. The question of sanity is for the trier of fact (see, People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 77, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44, 187 N.E.2d 116; People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461, 548 N.Y.S.2d 567, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 787, 559 N.Y.S.2d 992, 559 N.E.2d 686), and " 'if the record in its entirety presents a fair conflict in the evidence, or if conflicting inferences can properly be drawn from it, "* * * the determination of the jury will not be interfered ... ...