Opinion
June 23, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Broomer, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
At trial, the defense was lack of criminal responsibility by reason of a mental disease or defect. The defendant's expert witness testified that because the defendant suffered from the relatively rare form of mental illness known as "intermittent explosive disorder" at the time of his acts, he lacked the capacity to appreciate the nature of his actions and could not realize that his conduct was wrong. In rebuttal, the People's expert, who, after reviewing the defendant's medical records and statements to the police, had examined him for a period of 2 1/2 hours, testified that the defendant had not suffered from intermittent explosive disorder and was able to appreciate the nature of his wrongful acts.
Where conflicting medical testimony is offered, the question of sanity is for the trier of fact to decide (see, People v Gilbert, 103 A.D.2d 967; People v. Rock, 49 A.D.2d 666, affd 42 N.Y.2d 845). As there was no serious flaw in the testimony of the People's expert, the Trial Judge's finding of sanity should not be disturbed on appeal (see, People v. Mainville, 59 A.D.2d 809; People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69, 77; cf. People v. Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607; People v. Slaughter, 34 A.D.2d 50).
With regard to the defendant's remaining contention, the record establishes that the defendant offered no reasonable explanation or excuse for his alleged extreme emotional disturbance (see, People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 678-679, cert denied 449 U.S. 842; Penal Law § 125.25 [a]). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.