From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Keating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

In People v. Keating (283 AD2d 589), cited by the dissent, the defendant was intoxicated (with a blood alcohol level found to be nearly twice the legal limit).

Summary of this case from People v. Lazartes

Opinion

Submitted May 1, 2001.

May 21, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered December 13, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (two counts), and leaving the scene of an accident (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

O'Connell and Aronowitz, Albany, N.Y. (Gloria Herron Arthur of counsel), for appellant.

William L. Murphy, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Karen F. McGee and Jillian S. Harrington of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his conviction for murder in the second degree was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Generally, the assessment of the objective circumstances demonstrating a defendant's depraved indifference to human life is a qualitative judgment to be made by the trier of fact (see, People v. Soto, 240 A.D.2d 768, 769). The facts in this case clearly establish that the defendant not only acted recklessly, but with a depraved indifference to human life (see, People v. Gomez, 65 N.Y.2d 9, 11-13; People v. Walker, 258 A.D.2d 541; People v. Soto, supra, at 769; People v. Kirkpatrick, 177 A.D.2d 508, 509; People v. Cordero, 177 A.D.2d 499). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Keating

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 21, 2001
283 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

In People v. Keating (283 AD2d 589), cited by the dissent, the defendant was intoxicated (with a blood alcohol level found to be nearly twice the legal limit).

Summary of this case from People v. Lazartes
Case details for

People v. Keating

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. PADRAIC KEATING, APPELLANT. (IND. NO…

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

Date published: May 21, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 589 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 900

Citing Cases

People v. Lazartes

The defendant also fled the scene of the accident without any attempt to aid the victim, thus clearly further…

People v. Padraic Keating

June 15, 2010. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…