People v. Hines

• Decision Date: 02 February 1990
• Citation: 551 N.Y.S.2d 123,158 A.D.2d 972
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan HINES, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 123

551 N.Y.S.2d 123

158 A.D.2d 972

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v.Jonathan HINES, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Feb. 2, 1990.

Frank Nebush, Jr. by Deanna Lamb, Utica, for appellant.

Barry M. Donalty by Charles Gallagher, Utica, for respondent.

Before DENMAN, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, LAWTON and DAVIS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for depraved indifference assault (Penal Law § 120.10[3].We disagree.Defendant contends that the evidence failed to establish three elements of the crime: that he acted in conscious disregard of a substantial risk; that his conduct created a grave risk of death; or that he acted under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life.Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to establish those essential elements.The proof established that defendant was aware of the presence of a large crowd of people in the street and that he recklessly drove his car directly toward the crowd, striking and severely injuring a woman.There is thus sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination (see, People v. Roe, 74 N.Y.2d 20, 544 N.Y.S.2d 297, 542 N.E.2d 610;People v. Register, 60 N.Y.2d 270, 469 N.Y.S.2d 599, 457 N.E.2d 704, cert. denied466 U.S. 953, 104 S.Ct. 2159, 80 L.Ed.2d 544;People v. McManus, 108 A.D.2d 474, 489 N.Y.S.2d 561, revd. on other grounds67 N.Y.2d 541, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202).Additionally,...