From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Esposito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 5, 1995

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues, on several grounds, that the court should have suppressed the various statements he had given to the police following his arrest. However, upon review of the hearing record and according great weight to the determination of the hearing court (see, People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761; People v Norris, 122 A.D.2d 82, 83), we find that the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived them. We find no merit to the defendant's contention that his statements should be deemed involuntary due to a purported delay by the police in arraigning him (see, People v. Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079; People v Dairsaw, 46 N.Y.2d 739, cert denied 440 U.S. 985).

Regarding the proof of his guilt of murder in the second degree, the defendant contends that his conduct, albeit reckless, did not evince a depraved indifference to human life. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of depraved indifference murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial evidence reveals that the defendant and the decedent were involved in a vehicular "cat and mouse" game whereby the defendant pursued the decedent on suburban streets, often at high speeds and with disregard to traffic control devices, and repeatedly rammed his vehicle into the driver's side of the decedent's auto, until following a sharp turn, the decedent struck a tree resulting in his fatal injuries. This conduct satisfies the "depraved indifference" aspect of the second degree murder count (see, People v. Gomez, 65 N.Y.2d 9, 11-12; People v. Perkins, 177 A.D.2d 720, 721-722).

Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Pizzuto, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Esposito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 1995
216 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Esposito

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANGELO ESPOSITO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 5, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
627 N.Y.S.2d 739

Citing Cases

People v. Lazartes

However, the conduct and the circumstances surrounding its use must be beyond mere recklessness and must…

People v. Esposito

Decided March 15, 2004. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground…