People v. Haney, 75 N.Y.2d 944 (1990)

To be found guilty of criminally negligent homicide, a driver’s failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death from operating a motor vehicle must be a gross deviation from the ordinary standard of care.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for criminally negligent homicide, holding that sufficient evidence existed to prove the defendant failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk when operating his vehicle, constituting a gross deviation from the standard of care. The defendant was driving at an excessive speed, ignored warnings to slow down, and struck a State Trooper. Unlike a related case decided the same day, *People v. Boutin*, the court found ample evidence of criminally culpable, risk-creating conduct by the defendant.

Facts

The defendant was driving at least 90 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone. He was aware that he was traveling through a police radar area. The defendant observed a line of traffic backed up ahead on the Thruway, with cars halted on the side of the road. Despite a warning from his passenger to reduce speed, the defendant accelerated his vehicle. Subsequently, the defendant struck and killed a State Trooper.

Procedural History

The defendant was tried and convicted of criminally negligent homicide. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s verdict finding the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide based on his operation of a motor vehicle.

Holding

Yes, because the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficiently demonstrated that the defendant failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would result from his operation of the motor vehicle and that this failure was a gross deviation from the ordinary standard of care.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied Penal Law §§ 125.10 and 15.05 (4), referencing the standard for criminally negligent homicide, which requires a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk, constituting a gross deviation from the standard of care. The court distinguished this case from *People v. Boutin*, a case decided the same day, where the evidence of risk-creating conduct was insufficient. In *Haney*, the court found ample evidence of “criminally culpable risk-creating conduct.” The court emphasized the defendant’s excessive speed, awareness of the radar area, observation of stopped traffic, disregard for passenger warnings, and ultimate striking of the State Trooper as factors supporting the jury’s verdict. The court stated that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide for failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would result from his operation of a motor vehicle when that failure was a gross deviation from the ordinary standard of care (see, Penal Law §§ 125.10, 15.05 [4]; People v Ricardo B., 73 NY2d 228, 236).