People v. Truscio, 251 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Truscio, 251 A.D.2d 966 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: MILLER, VINCENT, PEOPLE v (nyappdiv, 2012-06-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" MILLER, VINCENT, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We nevertheless conclude that County Court did not err in admitting that testimony inasmuch as the correction officer testified based upon personal knowledge and did not offer any opinion concerning ultimate factual issues that were “more properly within the province of the jury” (People v Rivera, 212 AD2d 1040, 1041 , lv denied 85 NY2d -2- 703 KA 10-02512 979; see generally People v Truscio, 251 AD2d 966, 967 , lv denied 92 NY2d 986 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We nevertheless conclude that County Court did not err in admitting that testimony inasmuch as the correction officer testified based upon personal knowledge and did not offer any opinion concerning ultimate factual issues that were “more properly within the province of the jury” (People v Rivera, 212 AD2d 1040, 1041 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 979 [1995]; see generally People v Truscio, 251 AD2d 966, 967 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 986 [1998]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
We nevertheless conclude that County Court did not err in admitting that testimony inasmuch as the correction officer testified based upon personal knowledge and did not offer any opinion concerning ultimate factual issues that were “more properly within the province of the jury” (People v Rivera, 212 AD2d 1040, 1041 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 979 [1995]; see generally People v Truscio, 251 AD2d 966, 967 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 986 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Ann M. Truscio
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 10, 1998.
251 A.D.2d 966
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her of criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10) and 12 counts of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), based upon her injection of insulin into six patients at a hospital where she was employed as a nurse. The People’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. We conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, could lead a rational trier of fact to the conclusion reached by the jury (see, People v Cabey, 85 NY2d 417, 421; People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926). Thus, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

[*967] The contention of defendant that she was deprived of a fair trial by the admission into evidence of testimony concerning a prior uncharged arson and evidence regarding the statistical probabilities in this case is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial. Testimony about the prior uncharged arson was introduced to establish that the motive of defendant in administering insulin to the patients was her need to be thought of as heroic (see generally, People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350). With respect to the statistical evidence, Supreme Court admonished the jury that the opinions expressed by the expert were based upon a number of assumptions and judgments that the jury had to accept before it could consider the expert’s mathematical calculations. In addition, the court instructed the jury that it must determine for itself whether defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, the expert testimony did not invade “ ‘the jury’s exclusive province of determining an ultimate fact issue in the case’ ” (People v Bajraktari, 154 AD2d 542, 543, lv denied 75 NY2d 963, quoting People v Abreu, 114 AD2d 853, 854). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Dadd, J.— Criminally Negligent Homicide.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.