People v. Marhone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marhone

57 A.D.3d 803, 870 N.Y.2d 375

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 803 (People v. Marhone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Marhone, 57 A.D.3d 803, 870 N.Y.2d 375 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[804]*804The defendant was convicted of both felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) and depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). The defendant’s legal insufficiency claim as to depraved indifference murder is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not object with the necessary specificity at trial (see e.g. People v Ferraro, 49 AD3d 550, 551 [2008]; People v Fields, 37 AD3d 733 [2007]). We nonetheless reach the issue pursuant to our interest of justice jurisdiction and conclude, as the People correctly concede, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder (see People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 296 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 271 [2004]; People v Hawthorne, 35 AD3d 499 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[804]*804The defendant was convicted of both felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]) and depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). The defendant’s legal insufficiency claim as to depraved indifference murder is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not object with the necessary specificity at trial (see e.g. People v Ferraro, 49 AD3d 550, 551 [2008]; People v Fields, 37 AD3d 733 [2007]). We nonetheless reach the issue pursuant to our interest of justice jurisdiction and conclude, as the People correctly concede, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder (see People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 296 [2006]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 271 [2004]; People v Hawthorne, 35 AD3d 499 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 803, 870 N.Y.2d 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marhone-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack