People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 26 April 1993
• Citation: 192 A.D.2d 737,597 N.Y.S.2d 116
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Demetrius WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 116

597 N.Y.S.2d 116

192 A.D.2d 737

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Demetrius WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

April 26, 1993.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Frank Loss, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Leonard Joblove, and Barbara Thomashower, of counsel), for respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and BALLETTA, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman J.), rendered September 7, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well established that where conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of the defendant's sanity rests with the trier of fact, which may accept or reject the opinion of the expert witness and, in the absence of a serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, the fact finding of sanity will not be disturbed (see, People v. 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 and we find that the jury's verdict should not be disturbed.

The defendant also contends that it was reversible error for the trial court to submit a verdict sheet which indicated the order in which the jury was to deliberate and which included the names of the victims on the various kidnapping charges. As the defendant's only objection was to the parenthetical phrases "felony murder" and "depraved indifference", which references were removed before the verdict sheet was given to the jury, the defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review (see, People v. Hernandez, 172 A.D.2d 560, 567 N.Y.S.2d 886; People v. Ribowsky, 156 A.D.2d 726, 549 N.Y.S.2d 480 affd. 77 N.Y.2d 284, 567 N.Y.S.2d 392, 568 N.E.2d 1197; People v. Gray, 154 A.D.2d 478, 545 N.Y.S.2d 945; People v. Mathis, 150 A.D.2d 613, 543 N.Y.S.2d 267; People v. Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502, 540 N.Y.S.2d 750; People v. Rodriguez, 144 A.D.2d 598, 535 N.Y.S.2d 973; People v. Decambre, 143 A.D.2d 927, 533 N.Y.S.2d 516; People v. Battles, 141 A.D.2d 748, 529 N.Y.S.2d 1013; People v. Williams, 138 A.D.2d 430, 525 N.Y.S.2d 592; People v. Monroe, 135 A.D.2d 741, 522 N.Y.S.2d 643). We decline to review...