Opinion
September 14, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's criminal responsibility for the fatal stabbing of his acquaintance (see, Penal Law former § 30.05, now § 40.15 [L 1984, ch 688, § 3]; see also, Penal Law § 25.00). Although the evidence indicated that the defendant suffers from a "schizo-affective" disorder, the People's expert was of the opinion that the defendant was not experiencing any delusions at the time he committed the stabbing (cf., People v. Gonzalez, 100 A.D.2d 913). This expert's testimony contains no serious flaw (see, People v. Hicks, 125 A.D.2d 332, 333, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 881; People v. Jandelli, 118 A.D.2d 656, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 668), and we note that one of the defendant's experts acknowledged on cross-examination that the defendant knew he was inflicting fatal injuries and agreed that the defendant knew his actions would "run afoul of the law". By its rendition of a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree (see, People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 302, affd 432 U.S. 197; cf., People v. Sears, 58 A.D.2d 693), the jury concluded that the defendant had the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct and knew that his conduct was wrong (see, People v. Wood, 12 N.Y.2d 69). We discern no basis for disturbing that finding.
We do not agree with the defendant's contention that prosecutorial misconduct during summation deprived him of a fair trial. While the prosecutor improperly denigrated the defendant's experts and his defense (see, People v. Wood, supra, at 77-78; People v. Langert, 105 A.D.2d 845, 846), the defendant's present claims with respect thereto are not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, the remarks do not warrant reversal (see, People v. Langert, supra, at 846). Moreover, the prosecutor's summation was not otherwise unreasonable when evaluated in light of that of the defense (see, People v. Colon, 122 A.D.2d 151).
Finally, the defendant's sentence is not excessive. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.