Opinion ID: 2124028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Sufficiency and Expert Witness Claims

Text: Evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction where, if accepted as true, [it] would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof (CPL 70.10 [1]). This Court's role on sufficiency review is limited to determining whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt ( Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [1979]; see also People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]). Ultimately, so long as the evidence at trial establishes any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could lead a rational person to convict, then the conviction survives sufficiency review ( People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [1994]). Both defendants Corines and Santi contend that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Santi's conviction for the unauthorized practice of medicine and Corines' conviction for aiding and abetting such unauthorized practice. They focus their claim on the People's failure to call an expert witness to testify to the effects of anesthesia. They assert on appeal that, in the absence of expert testimony establishing a causal connection between the sensations each of the complaining patients experienced and the typical effects attendant to the administration of anesthesia, the evidence at trial was insufficient to support their convictions. Expert testimony is properly admitted when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge . . . beyond the ken of the typical juror ( De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 [1983]). Admission of expert testimony is a matter largely left to the discretion of the trial court ( see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 505 [2002]). While expert testimony may be properly admitted in certain cases, it is not always required to prove a particular crime ( see e.g. People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 87-88 [1995]). Additionally, an expert is not necessarily required to testify to the effects of a particular drug; lay testimony on this issue suffices in some instances ( see People v Kenny, 30 NY2d 154, 156-157 [1972]). Simply, expert testimony is used to aid a lay jury in reaching a verdict ( People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990]). Expert testimony was not required in this case. We recognized long ago that modern juries are not bereft of education and intelligent persons who can be expected to applytheir ordinary judgment and practical experience ( Havas v Victory Paper Stock Co., 49 NY2d 381, 386 [1980]). The administration of anesthesia, a commonly employed means of relieving pain during surgical procedures, is not a matter so foreign or esoteric as to require an expert explanation. Jurors, equipped with their everyday knowledge and experience, could reasonably have concluded that the sensations and experiences described by each of the patient-witnesses were caused by the administration of anesthesia. Under the circumstances of this case, on this record, it is clear that the jury did not need expert assistance in determining whether Santi administered anesthesia to each of the complaining patients. The three patient-witnesses described in detail their experiences with defendants. Each testified regarding a warm sensation following Santi's introduction of the I.V. line. Both Patient A and Patient C fell into unconsciousness shortly after Santi started the respective I.V. line. After Corines directed Santi to increase the flow of the I.V., Patient C immediately lost consciousness. When one patient regained consciousness, she needed assistance dressing, and she remained weak and semi-conscious for a significant period following the procedure. While Patient B did not lose consciousness, his medical records stated that he received sedatives to ease his pain. He recalled a warm, burning sensation that followed Santi's insertion of the I.V. prior to Corines ever entering the room. Following the procedure Patient B was weak and woozy. He was unable to rise up off the operating table without holding on to something for support. This evidence, both direct and circumstantial, supported the People's theory. Furthermore, defendant Corines' own testimony, and his own medical records, proved helpful to the People ( see generally People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001]). Corines described anesthesia as a type of pain reliever, and he described the manner in which anesthesia is typically administered, either through an I.V. line or via direct injection. Additionally, Corines confirmed that each of the patient-witnesses received anesthesia, and he admitted that defendant Santi, his medical assistant, attended each of the four procedures. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the jury could have used a clear and valid line of reasoning to convict Santi and, consequently, Corines as acting in concert on each of the four counts of the indictment.