People v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 01 December 1986 |
| Citation | 125 A.D.2d 332,509 N.Y.S.2d 62 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Mary HICKS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Dawn Martin, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Ray F. Cerreta, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BROWN, NIEHOFF and KOOPER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered July 15, 1985, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions on appeal, the record discloses that the People met her claimed defense of justification with ample evidence tending to establish that the stabbing involved was not justifiable. At trial, the People produced a police witness through whom the prosecutor elicited the defendant's incriminatory post-arrest account of the stabbing which differed materially from her exculpatory trial testimony regarding the incident. The defendant's admissions, accordingly, formed the evidentiary basis from which the trier of fact could rationally conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was not, in fact, faced with deadly force immediately prior to her fatal stabbing of the victim and that her own use of deadly force was, therefore, unjustified (see, Penal Law § 35.15 cf. People v. Hanley, 112 A.D.2d 1048, 1049, 493 N.Y.S.2d 35; People v. Boute, 111 A.D.2d 398, 399, 489 N.Y.S.2d 605).
The defendant further contends that the People did not prove her sanity beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law former § 30.05 Penal Law § 25.00; People v. Silver, 33 N.Y.2d 475, 354 N.Y.S.2d 915, 310 N.E.2d 520). We do not agree. It is the general rule that where conflicting testimony is presented 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. Buthy, 38 A.D.2d 10, 12-13, 326 N.Y.S.2d 512). Here, the trier of fact could have properly inferred from the conflicting evidence that the defendant was criminally responsible for her conduct when the crime in question was committed (see, People v. Wood, supra, 12 N.Y.2d at p. 77, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44, 187 N.E.2d 116; People v. Breeden, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...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 and we find that the jury's verdict ......
-
People v. Mitchell
...People v. Golpe, 134 A.D.2d 449, 450, 521 N.Y.S.2d 71, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 932, 524 N.Y.S.2d 683, 519 N.E.2d 629; People v. Hicks, 125 A.D.2d 332, 333, 509 N.Y.S.2d 62, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 881, 515 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 507 N.E.2d 1099; People v. Robertson, 123 A.D.2d 795, 796, 507 N.Y.S.2d 267,......
-
People v. Seiler
...of sanity will not be disturbed when no serious flaw is found in the testimony of the People's expert ( see, 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 Defense experts, Dr. Mauris Platkin and Dr. Herman Snow, testified as to defendant's h......
-
People v. Markowitz
...(cf., People v. Gonzalez, 100 A.D.2d 913, 474 N.Y.S.2d 585). This expert's testimony contains no serious flaw (see, People v. Hicks, 125 A.D.2d 332, 333, 509 N.Y.S.2d 62, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 881, 507 N.E.2d 1099; People v. Jandelli, 118 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 962, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 66......