16 N.Y.3d 43 (2010)
When a defendant commits attempted murder against one victim, and in the course of that attempt, kills another person, consecutive sentences for the attempted murder and the transferred intent murder are permissible if separate and distinct acts caused each offense.
Summary
Defendant McKnight, acting in concert with another, attempted to murder Lingard. In the process, stray bullets struck and killed Smith, an innocent bystander. McKnight was convicted of both attempted murder of Lingard and murder of Smith under a transferred intent theory. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that consecutive sentences were permissible because the actus reus of the attempted murder (shots fired at Lingard) was distinct from the actus reus of the murder (shots that struck Smith), even though the intent was the same. This case clarifies the application of Penal Law § 70.25(2) regarding consecutive sentences when multiple offenses arise from a single transaction.
Facts
McKnight and Brown approached Lingard and two other men, Smith and Lamotte, and began firing guns. Lingard and Lamotte fled, while Smith was struck by bullets and died. The evidence showed that a total of ten shots were fired: five 9mm rounds and five .45 caliber rounds. Police apprehended Brown shortly after the incident, but McKnight was not apprehended for several months. Neither of the guns was recovered.
Procedural History
McKnight was indicted and convicted of second-degree murder and second-degree attempted murder. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life for murder and 20 years to life for attempted murder. McKnight appealed, arguing that Penal Law § 70.25(2) mandated concurrent sentences. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether Penal Law § 70.25(2) mandates concurrent sentences when a defendant is convicted of both attempted murder and transferred intent murder, arising from a single shooting incident with multiple shots fired?
Holding
No, because the actus reus of the attempted murder (shots fired at the intended victim) was distinct from the actus reus of the murder (shots that struck the unintended victim), allowing for consecutive sentences.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals analyzed Penal Law § 70.25(2), which requires concurrent sentences when offenses are committed through a single act, or when one offense is a material element of the other. The court emphasized that the focus must be on the