People v. McCart
| Decision Date | 11 May 1990 |
| Citation | 157 A.D.2d 194,555 N.Y.S.2d 954 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John L. McCART, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Joel Daniels, Buffalo, for appellant.
Theodore E. Wiggins, Jr., Dist. Atty. by Theodore Wiggins, Geneseo, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., CALLAHAN, DENMAN, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.
At trial on an indictment charging manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15[1], the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10). The judgment of conviction must be reversed and the indictment dismissed because the prosecutor was allowed to elicit expert testimony which impermissibly intruded upon the province of the jury on the issue whether defendant's conduct caused the victim's death. On this record, we cannot say that the error was harmless.
On June 10, 1988 the defendant and several other people, including the victim Alan Till, were drinking alcoholic beverages in a tavern in Mt. Morris. At about 2:30 a.m. Till passed out and fell from his barstool to the floor. Defendant and another man decided to play a "practical joke" on Till. After finishing their drinks, they carried Till to defendant's car and transported him to a nearby cemetery where they laid his unconscious body on the ground. By whatever means, the victim's clothing had been adjusted to expose a substantial part of his torso. The cemetery groundskeeper discovered Till's body at 7 a.m. and shortly thereafter Till was pronounced dead at the scene. The temperature at 8 a.m. was 40 degrees Fahrenheit and the low temperature for the preceding 24 hours was 34 degrees Fahrenheit. An autopsy revealed that Till's blood alcohol level was .42%. On both the provisional autopsy report and the final autopsy report, "acute ethanol intoxication" was listed as a diagnosis and, on the death certificate, the cause of death was stated as "acute ethanol intoxication". On the death certificate only, "hypothermia" was listed under "other significant conditions contributing to death", but Dr. Jacqueline Martin, the Deputy Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy, specifically excluded hypothermia as a cause of death.
Dr. Martin and two other medical experts testified at trial regarding the synergistic effect of alcohol and exposure. Each fully described how the consumption of alcohol can contribute to death from hypothermia by lowering the body's resistance to cold, but only one offered testimony describing how exposure to cold can contribute to death from acute ethanol intoxication. Nevertheless, the three experts concluded that exposure was a contributing factor in causing the death. Over the vigorous objection of defendant that use of the language "link in the chain" posed a legal rather than a medical question, the prosecutor was permitted to elicit testimony from each of the experts that exposure was a "link in the chain" of causation leading to Till's death. Each of the experts pointedly declined to state, however, that, but for defendant's conduct in leaving Till at the cemetery, Till would have survived. Dr. Martin was asked whether Till would have died if he had been taken home that evening and put in his bed. She responded: "With a reasonable degree of medical certainty I cannot give a specific answer to that." Dr. Jeanne Beno, Chief Toxicologist for Monroe County, was asked whether Till would have survived if he had not been left in the cemetery. She responded: "It is possible he would have died." Dr. Nicholas Forbes, Chief Medical Examiner for Monroe County, also acknowledged that alcohol intoxication alone could have caused the death within a period of several hours.
As is demonstrated by the questioning of the medical experts, causation was a principal issue at trial. Indeed, the major part of defense counsel's summation was addressed to that issue. In its main charge, the court instructed the jury that "the prosecutor must at least prove that the defendant's conduct was an actual cause of death in the sense that it forged a link in the chains of causes which actually brought about the death." During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court which stated: "Please read the part of the law which speaks to links of the chain that is the causation." In responding, the court repeated the language previously quoted. After the jury resumed deliberations, defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial. He argued that defendant was denied a fair trial because the request submitted by the jury highlighted the impropriety of permitting the experts to testify that exposure was a "link in the chain" of causation. The motion was denied, and a short time later the jury sent another note to the court in which it asked: "[C]ould you please repeat the causation." Again the court essentially repeated the language of the main charge. The jury resumed deliberations and, following a request for further instructions on the law relating to criminally negligent homicide, a verdict of guilty of that crime was returned.
A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another (Penal Law § 125.10). 1 To establish causation, "the prosecutor must, at least, prove that the defendant's conduct was an actual cause of death in the sense that it forged a link in the chain of causes which actually brought about the death" (People v. Stewart 0 N.Y.2d 692, 697, 389 N.Y.S.2d 804, 358 N.E.2d 487; see also, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 280, 481 N.Y.S.2d 675,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Campanella
...v. Klosin, 281 A.D.2d 951, 951–952, 725 N.Y.S.2d 478,lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 864, 730 N.Y.S.2d 38, 754 N.E.2d 1121;see also People v. McCart, 157 A.D.2d 194, 197, 555 N.Y.S.2d 954,lv. denied76 N.Y.2d 861, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 561 N.E.2d 900). “It is axiomatic that [100 A.D.3d 1421]expert testimon......
-
People v. Eberle
...required to establish the cause or connection between a defendant's actions and an individual's death (see, People v. McCart, 157 A.D.2d 194, 197, 555 N.Y.S.2d 954, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 861, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 561 N.E.2d 900). Here, the opinion of the People's expert was not based on profes......
-
People v. Weiler
...on the ultimate issue, i.e., whether defendant used excessive force so as to vitiate his justification defense (cf., People v. McCart, 157 A.D.2d 194, 197, 555 N.Y.S.2d 954, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 861, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 561 N.E.2d 900). However, in view of the overwhelming proof of defendant......
-
People v. Patterson
...of complainant's arthritis (see generally, People v. Stewart, 40 N.Y.2d 692, 697, 389 N.Y.S.2d 804, 358 N.E.2d 487; People v. McCart, 157 A.D.2d 194, 197, 555 N.Y.S.2d 954, lv. denied, 76 N.Y.2d 861, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 561 N.E.2d 900). The evidence established, however, that defendant forci......