57 N.Y.2d 822 (1982)
A defendant can be convicted of criminally negligent homicide even if the jury does not find them guilty of every act alleged in the indictment, provided the remaining proven acts are sufficient to establish criminal negligence.
Summary
Michael Rooney was charged with criminally negligent homicide for causing a death while driving intoxicated, speeding, and driving on the wrong side of the road. The jury acquitted him of driving under the influence but convicted him of criminally negligent homicide. Rooney argued that the jury had to find him guilty of all the acts mentioned in the indictment to convict him of criminally negligent homicide. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution did not need to prove every act alleged in the indictment, as long as the remaining proven acts sufficiently established criminal negligence. This case clarifies that not all factual allegations in an indictment are essential for conviction.
Facts
Michael Rooney was driving a motor vehicle. He drove at an excessive rate of speed. He drove on the wrong side of the road. Rooney struck another vehicle. The collision resulted in the death of another person. Rooney was alleged to have been intoxicated while driving. The indictment charged Rooney with criminally negligent homicide based on the above actions.
Procedural History
Rooney was tried in the trial court on an indictment for criminally negligent homicide and driving under the influence of alcohol. Rooney requested a jury instruction that required proof of all acts alleged in the indictment to convict him of criminally negligent homicide. The trial court refused the instruction. The jury found Rooney not guilty of driving under the influence but guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Rooney appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Rooney appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant can be found guilty of criminally negligent homicide if the jury does not find them guilty of all the acts mentioned in the indictment related to the charge.
Holding
No, because not every fact mentioned in an indictment is essential to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime charged; it is not necessary that the People prove all acts alleged when the remaining acts are sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that not every fact mentioned in an indictment is essential to establish the defendant’s guilt. The court stated that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove all the acts alleged in the indictment, as long as the remaining acts are sufficient to sustain a conviction. In this case, the jury could find that Rooney was criminally negligent when he drove on the wrong side of the road while speeding, even if he was not intoxicated at the time. The court emphasized that the essential element was whether Rooney’s conduct, considered as a whole or in part, constituted criminal negligence. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury as requested by Rooney, affirming the lower court’s decision. The court, in essence, found that the jury could reasonably conclude that driving on the wrong side of the road at an excessive speed, even without intoxication, constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care and therefore, criminal negligence.