18 N.Y.3d 864 (2012)
To be convicted of reckless assault, the defendant must be aware of and consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their actions will cause the resulting harm; mere criminal negligence is insufficient.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, reducing the defendant’s conviction from reckless assault in the second degree to criminally negligent assault in the third degree. The defendant poured hot water on her nephew, resulting in burns. While the evidence supported a finding of criminal negligence, the Court of Appeals found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk that the hot water would cause serious burns. The court remitted the case to the Appellate Division for a weight of the evidence review.
Facts
On August 12, 2007, Antoine S., the 15-year-old nephew of the defendant, was at the defendant’s home with his younger sister. Antoine and his sister were in the kitchen with the defendant, heating water on the stove for a bath. Antoine began splashing the defendant with water, and the defendant playfully splashed him back, stating that she was the “queen of pranks.” Antoine then went to another room to watch television. The defendant retrieved the pot of hot water from the stove and poured it on Antoine. Antoine sustained first- and second-degree burns as a result.
Procedural History
The County Court acquitted the defendant of intentional assault in the first degree but convicted her of reckless assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the reckless assault conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed. The defendant further appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution presented legally sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted recklessly when she poured hot water on her nephew, resulting in burn injuries?
Holding
No, because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that her behavior would cause Antoine’s skin to burn.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals analyzed the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the reckless assault conviction. The court referenced the standard for legal sufficiency, stating, “ ‘[a] verdict is legally sufficient when, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the People, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (quoting People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]).
The court then turned to the definition of “recklessly” under Penal Law § 15.05 (3), which states that a person acts recklessly when “ ‘[s]he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur . . . The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.’ ” The court found that while the evidence supported a finding of criminal negligence, it did not demonstrate that the defendant was “aware of” and “consciously disregarded” a known risk that her behavior would cause Antoine’s skin to burn.
The Court remitted the case to the Appellate Division for a weight of the evidence review. Citing People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 646 (2006), the court noted the People conceded that the Appellate Division order “manifests a lack of application of that review power.”