People v. Jandelli
| Decision Date | 10 March 1986 |
| Citation | 499 N.Y.S.2d 962,118 A.D.2d 656 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent-Appellant, v. Robert J. JANDELLI, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dominic J. Sichenzia, Garden City, for appellant-respondent.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Jeanette Lifschitz, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and NIEHOFF, RUBIN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), rendered November 15, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Cross appeal by the People from the sentence imposed on the defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree of from 7 1/2 years to life imprisonment.
Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed on the defendant's conviction of murder in the second degree of 7 1/2 years to life imprisonment. As so modified, judgment affirmed, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentence in conformance with Penal Law § 70.00.
Late in the evening of January 29, 1981, the defendant killed his sister by striking her about the head repeatedly with a hammer and then slitting her throat with a knife. The defendant pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (Penal Law former § 30.05). At trial, the defendant's medical expert opined that the defendant, at the time of the killing, was acting in conformance with one who experienced an attack of Penfield's Automatism and, consequently, did not know the wrongfulness or the nature and consequences of his acts. The People's medical experts gave opinions that ruled out Penfield's Automatism based on examinations and the defendant's medical records, and concluded that he was sane at the time of the killing.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that the People did not prove him sane 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 expert testimony is presented, the question of sanity is for the jury (see, People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 77, 236 N.Y.S.2d 44, 187 N.E.2d 116). The jury has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert and where, as here, there is an absence of a serious flaw in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Haupt
...the People's expert psychiatrist, which we do not find, the jury's finding of sanity should be left undisturbed (see, People v. Jandelli, 118 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 962). The sentence of life imprisonment imposed was not illegal (see, People v. Pepples, 32 A.D.2d 1041, 303 N.Y.S.2d 796, a......
-
People v. Hicks
...(see, People v. Robertson, 123 A.D.2d 795, 507 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 ...
-
People v. Rodriguez
...for the trier of fact ( see, People v. Horton, 308 N.Y. 1, 123 N.E.2d 609, rearg. denied 308 N.Y. 748, 125 N.E.2d 106; People v. Jandelli, 118 A.D.2d 656, 499 N.Y.S.2d 962, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 668, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 496 N.E.2d 692; People v. Buthy, 38 A.D.2d 10, 326 N.Y.S.2d 512), and, up......
-
People v. Markowitz
...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 668, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 496 N.E.2d 692), and we note that one of the defendant's experts acknowledg......