People v. Davis

The court properly precluded defendant’s psychiatric expert witness from expressing an opinion on defendant’s intent. The expert’s proposed testimony had no genuine bearing on whether defendant acted intentionally within the meaning of Penal Law § 15.05 (1), and it would not have helped to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge beyond the knowledge of the jurors (see People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433 [1983]; People v Kincey, 168 AD2d 231, 232 [1990], lv denied 78 NY2d 955 [1991]). At most, the proposed testimony tended to establish the undisputed fact that the crime…