From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jandelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 1986
118 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

March 10, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).


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). 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). 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 testimony of the People's experts, the jury's finding of sanity will not be disturbed (see, People v. Bell, 64 A.D.2d 785).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

The People contend that the minimum term of the defendant's sentence of 7 1/2 years to life imprisonment for murder in the second degree is unauthorized by statute (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [a]; [3] [a] [i]). We agree. Penal Law § 70.00 (3) (a) (i) mandates a minimum period of imprisonment of not less than 15 years nor more than 25 years. The defendant must be resentenced accordingly. Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jandelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 10, 1986
118 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Jandelli

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent-Appellant, v. ROBERT J…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 10, 1986

Citations

118 A.D.2d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Rodriguez

Whether by reason of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder defendant lacked substantial capacity to know or…

People v. Rodriguez

ealth professionals (see, CPL 730.20), one of whom had examined the defendant in connection with his initial…