People v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 12 November 2010
• Citation: 78 A.D.3d 1506,911 N.Y.S.2d 521
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael J. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

911 N.Y.S.2d 521

78 A.D.3d 1506

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Michael J. HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 12, 2010.

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.

William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Victoria M. White of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ) and murder in the second degree (§ 125.25[2] ). We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of two counts of assault in the first degree (§ 120.10[3] ) and one count each of attempted murder and murder ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the jury's finding that he intended to murder one victim when he drove a vehicle into a crowd did not preclude a finding that he acted with depraved indifference with respect to the three other victims, "regardless of whether the evidence would havealso supported a transferred intent theory" ( People v. Hamilton, 52 A.D.3d 227, 228, 859 N.Y.S.2d 156, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 737, 864 N.Y.S.2d 395, 894 N.E.2d 659; see People v. Douglas, 73 A.D.3d 30, 33-34, 901 N.Y.S.2d 57). "Where, as here, more than one potential victim was present at the [scene of the crimes], a defendant may be convicted of both [intentional and depraved indifference crimes] because he or she may have possessed different states of mind with regard to different potential victims" ( People v. Page, 63 A.D.3d 506, 507-508, 880 N.Y.S.2d 287, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 837, 890 N.Y.S.2d 453, 918 N.E.2d 968; see Douglas, 73 A.D.3d at 33-34, 901 N.Y.S.2d 57). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we accord great deference to the jury's resolution of credibility issues and conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the verdict is repugnant by failing to object to the verdict on that ground before the jury was discharged ( see People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280; People v. Louder, 74 A.D.3d 1845, 902 N.Y.S.2d 496). In any event, that contention is without merit, and we therefore reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of ...