People v. Justice

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: GREEN; All concur, except DOERR
• Citation: 173 A.D.2d 144,579 N.Y.S.2d 502
• Decision Date: 26 December 1991
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John JUSTICE, Appellant.

Page 502

579 N.Y.S.2d 502 173 A.D.2d 144 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
John JUSTICE, Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Fourth Department. Dec. 26, 1991.

Page 503

[173 A.D.2d 145] John Nuchereno, Buffalo, for appellant.

Kevin M. Dillon, Dist. Atty., by J. Michael Marion, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and DOERR, GREEN, BALIO and LAWTON, JJ.

GREEN, Justice:

The facts of this tragic case are not in dispute and may be stated briefly. On September 16, 1985 at approximately 3:15 P.M. defendant, then 17 years of age and academically gifted, stabbed his brother to death as the brother returned home from school. Shortly thereafter, defendant fatally stabbed his mother when she returned home from work, then picked up his father from work in the family car and stabbed him to death as he entered the house. Defendant then made several unsuccessful attempts at suicide, left the house in the family car at approximately 7:15 P.M., drove the car at an excessive [173 A.D.2d 146] rate of speed and crashed into a car operated by Wayne Haun, who was killed. Defendant sustained only minor injuries.

Defendant was charged with four counts of murder in the second degree and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree for the stabbing deaths of his brother, mother and father and the death of Mr. Haun. At trial defendant asserted the affirmative defense of insanity (see, Penal Law § 40.15). The jury found that defendant established the affirmative defense with respect to the deaths of his father and brother and found defendant not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect on those counts. The jury found defendant guilty of intentional murder in the death of his mother and guilty of depraved indifference murder in the death of Mr. Haun. Defendant's motion to set aside the verdict as inconsistent and repugnant was denied. Although the court's ruling was proper, the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted because the court's charge was inadequate, misleading and confusing.

The record, viewed with respect to the jury charge ( see, People v. Green, 71 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 530 N.Y.S.2d 97, 525 N.E.2d 742; People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617, rearg. denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039, 449 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 434 N.E.2d 1081), supports the trial court's conclusion that the verdict was not repugnant ( see, People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 697, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519, 474 N.E.2d 1187). The court repeatedly charged the jury that it must consider each count separately and report a separate verdict on each count. The jury was not charged that, if it accepted the affirmative defense on one count, it must accept it on all counts.

The jury verdict also is factually and legally sufficient (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Where, as here, there is conflicting expert testimony, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact, which has the right to accept or reject, in whole or in part, 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). Thus, the jury was not bound to accept the opinion of defendant's expert that defendant suffered from a psychosis, most likely paranoid schizophrenia, and that defendant's actions were "part and parcel of the same psychotic situation." Moreover, where there is no serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, the jury verdict will not be disturbed (see, People v. Enchautegui, 156 A.D.2d 461, 548 N.Y.S.2d 567). Here, there was no "serious flaw" in the testimony of Dr. Barton, the People's expert.

Dr. Barton examined defendant for approximately two hours on March 15, 1986. He concluded that defendant had a [173 A.D.2d 147] typical personality disorder and was somewhat egocentric, but was not psychotic or schizophrenic then, or at the time of the murders. Dr. Barton stressed that defendant did not experience hallucinations or delusions and was aware of what he was doing when the killings occurred. Dr. Barton opined that defendant murdered his brother to prevent him from calling the police, that he stabbed his father and brother out of love but killed his mother out of hate and that he showed remorse for killing Mr. Haun. The contrast between defendant's affection for his

Page 504

father and brother and hatred of his mother was a recurring feature of the expert testimony. That comports with defendant's explanation of his motives for the killings made to the hospital psychiatrist who examined him two days after the incidents. Dr. Barton explained that the altercation on the day before the murders between defendant and his mother, which was prompted by the...