From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Abney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 1991
173 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 13, 1991

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of depraved indifference murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant admitted that after an argument with his elderly uncle he went into a rage during which he repeatedly hit his uncle in the face and head with an axe. Additionally, the medical examiner testified that the victim had been stomped on and kicked while on the ground. The jury was thus entitled to find that the defendant created a grave risk of the victim's death and caused his death under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life (see, Penal Law § 125.25; People v Roe, 74 N.Y.2d 20; People v Rammelkamp, 167 A.D.2d 560). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

We find unpersuasive the defendant's claim that the inculpatory statements he made to police at a precinct and at the homicide squad office were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. It is well settled that the factual determinations of a hearing court are to be accorded great deference on appeal and will not be set aside unless they are unsupported by the evidence (see generally, People v Perry, 144 A.D.2d 706, 706-707). We discern no basis for disturbing the conclusions of the hearing court in this case, as the record amply supports its findings that the defendant was not in custody at the time a detective conducted investigatory questioning at the precinct and that the defendant's statements at the homicide squad office were preceded by a valid waiver of his Miranda rights. Accordingly, suppression of those statements was properly denied (see, People v Hurley, 154 A.D.2d 617, 618).

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Abney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 13, 1991
173 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Abney

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOEY ABNEY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 13, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 545 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
570 N.Y.S.2d 303

Citing Cases

People v. Tankleff

However, we are not free to vacate a conviction based on a finding of recklessness merely because we…

People v. Epps

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a…