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.
IN RE: ANDER G., III, RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. ONONDAGA COUNTY ATTORNEY, PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15[1] ). We reject respondent's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding that he caused the death of the victim. The evidence presented by the presentment agency established that, while participating in a “game” called “knockout,” respondent and his accomplice each struck the victim with a blow to the head. Respondent's accomplice struck the first blow, after which the victim attempted to use his cell phone. Respondent then struck the victim with the second blow, and the victim immediately collapsed to the ground. According to the testimony of the Medical Examiner, the postmortem examination revealed that the victim sustained a tear or laceration of the left vertebral artery, the bleeding from which can cause immediate unconsciousness and essentially immediate death. In light of the sequence of blows and the surrounding circumstances, the Medical Examiner opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the second blow was the cause of death. We reject respondent's further contention that the opinion of the Medical Examiner was legally insufficient because it was not set forth with absolute or scientific certainty (see Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 280–281; see also People v. Krotoszynski, 43 AD3d 450, 451–452, lv denied 9 NY3d 962; People v. Whitlatch, 294 A.D.2d 909, 909, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 703). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see generally People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621; Matter of Gilbert B., 280 A.D.2d 1006, 1007).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CAF 14–00618
Decided: November 21, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 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.
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.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)