People v. Rosario
| Decision Date | 03 November 1980 |
| Citation | 78 A.D.2d 864,432 N.Y.S.2d 625 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Anibal ROSARIO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Alan D. Rubinstein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Brian Sheppard, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HOPKINS, J. P., and GULOTTA, MARGETT and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
The People appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 26, 1979, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, with leave to resubmit.
Order affirmed.
We agree with Criminal Term that the instructions given the Grand Jury were insufficient, prejudicial and a denial to the defendant of due process. We also agree that the third count of the indictment, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, was insufficient on its face as it failed to include a material element of the crime charged (see Penal Law, § 265.02, subd. (4); People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600-601, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656).
However, contrary to Criminal Term we hold that the evidence before the Grand Jury was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the crime of criminally negligent homicide (CPL 190.65, subd. 1; People v. Peetz, 7 N.Y.2d 147, 196 N.Y.S.2d 83, 164 N.E.2d 384). The defendant observed the decedent produce a gun and wave it in the faces of those gathered in a room of an apartment. He watched as Juan Gomez took the gun from the decedent and removed the only bullet contained in the pistol. Although the defendant left the apartment for a period of time, upon his return he saw that Gomez still had the bullet. However, when the defendant left the room a second time, the decedent retrieved the bullet, reloaded the gun and began waving it about again. The defendant saw the decedent playing with the gun again and obtained it from him. As the defendant began to wave the gun around with his finger on the trigger it discharged killing the decedent.
The defendant's failure to ascertain whether the gun had been reloaded, when he saw the decedent again playing with the pistol, coupled with defendant's handling of the weapon, created a risk of death that, if unexplained and uncontradicted, was substantial, unjustifiable and a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation (see Penal Law, §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Stamell
-
People v. Bernier
...456; People v. Bolino, 146 A.D.2d 790, 792, 537 N.Y.S.2d 268; People v. Penrose, 146 A.D.2d 947, 537 N.Y.S.2d 322; People v. Rosario, 78 A.D.2d 864, 432 N.Y.S.2d 625). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of th......
-
People v. Reynolds
...a gun of this type and would have perceived a substantial risk of death in pointing and pulling the trigger (see, People v. Rosario, 78 A.D.2d 864, 432 N.Y.S.2d 625). ...