People v. Hamilton

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Citation: 186 A.D.2d 581,588 N.Y.S.2d 379
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Derrick HAMILTON, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 05 October 1992

Page 379

588 N.Y.S.2d 379

186 A.D.2d 581

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Derrick HAMILTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Oct. 5, 1992.

Steven J. Kosstrin, Hempstead, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall, and Catherine A. Donahue, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and HARWOOD, MILLER and SANTUCCI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.), both rendered May 9, 1989, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, rape in the first degree (6 counts), sodomy in the first degree (6 counts), robbery in the first degree (8 counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (5 counts), assault in the first degree (3 counts), grand larceny in the third degree (5 counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, under Indictment No. 1980/86, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence, and murder in the second degree under Indictment No. 3642/86, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain identification testimony.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

Between September of 1985 and March of 1986, the defendant raped, sodomized, sexually abused, robbed and assaulted eight young men and women in Brooklyn. As his crime rampage progressed, the defendant's attacks became increasingly more violent: he inflicted multiple stab wounds on two of his victims, and strangled to death and then set fire to a third. At the trial, the defendant offered expert testimony to show that he was insane when he committed these crimes.

Where conflicting expert testimony is presented at a trial, the question of sanity is for the fact-finder, who has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert (People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 77, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44, 187 N.E.2d 116; People v. Robertson, 123 A.D.2d 795, 507 N.Y.S.2d 267). "Where, as here, there is an 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" (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. Golpe, 134 A.D.2d 449, 521 N.Y.S.2d 71; People v. Robertson, supra ). Here, there was no documented history of psychosis (cf., People v. Hull, 162 A.D.2d 550, 551, 556 N.Y.S.2d 741), and the People's experts presented compelling evidence that the defendant was an antisocial malingerer. In consequence, there is no reason to disturb the court's finding of sanity.

There is no merit to the defendant's suggestion that the lineups held on March 28, 1986, were unfair because he had the lightest skin in the array. Where, as here, "[a]n examination of the hearing testimony reveals that the lineup stand-ins were all similar to the defendant in terms of ethnic background, height, weight and age", a pretrial lineup will be found not to be unduly suggestive (People v. Diaz, 138 A.D.2d 728, 526 N.Y.S.2d 540). "There is no requirement * * * that a defendant in a lineup be [accompanied] by [individuals] nearly identical in appearance" (People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70; People v. Rotunno, 159 A.D.2d 601, 552 N.Y.S.2d 445).

The defendant also claimed that the lineups were unfair because two of his victims had seen media coverage of his arrest. However, although one...