From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rolston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

February 5, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's contentions that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence to support his conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and endangering the welfare of an incompetent (Penal Law § 260.25). The record reveals that defendant offered money to the victim, a 29-year-old mentally disabled person, to do push-ups and sit-ups on a well-traveled street in the City of Buffalo. The victim performed some pushups in the street, returned to the sidewalk, then returned to the street to perform sit-ups. While performing the requested exercises, he was struck by a car and seriously injured. The evidence also revealed that, on prior occasions, defendant had offered money to the victim to perform various physical acts.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), was sufficient to establish that the victim lacked sufficient capacity to care for himself within the meaning of Penal Law § 260.25 and that defendant knew it was likely that the victim's physical wellbeing would be endangered by performing physical acts in the street. Moreover, the proof was sufficient to establish that defendant knew or should have known that such acts would create a grave risk of death and, given the victim's disability, that defendant's conduct evinced a depraved indifference to human life (see, Penal Law § 120.25; People v Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407).

Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the trial court improperly coerced the jury's verdict (see, CPL 470.05; People v Pacheco, 156 A.D.2d 593, 594, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 922) and the exercise of our discretionary review powers is not warranted. In any event, that contention has no merit. Likewise without merit is defendant's contention that the sentence imposed is harsh or excessive.


Summaries of

People v. Rolston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 5, 1993
190 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Rolston

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES ROLSTON…

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

Date published: Feb 5, 1993

Citations

190 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
593 N.Y.S.2d 383

Citing Cases

People v. Neville

The allegations against the Defendant need not address the victim's mental state at the time of the offense;…

People v. Johnson-Noble

(PL § 260.25; People v Rolston, 190 AD2d 1000 [4th Dept 1993]; People v Biamonte, 19 Misc 3d 139A [App Term…