Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James McGRANTHAM, Appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by dismissing the count of the indictment charging defendant with criminally negligent homicide; and, as so modified, affirmed.
There was evidence before the grand jury that, in the early morning hours of March 29, 2006, defendant was driving eastbound on Cropsey Avenue in Brooklyn and intended to enter the westbound lanes of the Belt Parkway Defendant, who was sober and had not been speeding, missed the entrance ramp and mistakenly drove onto the exit ramp for westbound traffic. Attempting to correct his mistake, defendant slowly made a U-turn across the three westbound lanes of traffic. He had almost completed the turn when a westbound motorcycle struck his driver's side door. The 20-year-old operator of the motorcycle was killed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the count of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide must be granted. Defendant's decision to make a U-turn across three lanes of traffic to extricate himself from a precarious situation was not wise, but it does not rise to the level of moral blameworthiness required to sustain a charge of criminally negligent homicide (see People v. Cabrera, 10 N.Y.3d 370, 378, 858 N.Y.S.2d 74, 887 N.E.2d 1132 [2008] ). The evidence was sufficient, however, to support the charge that defendant engaged in reckless driving by driving his vehicle “in a manner which unreasonably interfere[d] with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangere[d] users of the public highway” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 25, 2009
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)