People v. McLain

80 A.D.3d 992, 915 N.Y.S.2d 362
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 992 (People v. McLain) 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. McLain, 80 A.D.3d 992, 915 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Spain, J.E

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered January 9, 2009, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree.

On October 19, 2007, defendant called 911 around 9:00 a.m. from her apartment in the Village of Endicott, Broome County, and her two-year-old son, who was unresponsive and comatose, was thereafter taken by ambulance to the hospital. He had substantial fresh (and older) bruises all over his face, head, chest, abdomen, back and legs and had sustained massive, severe traumatic brain injuries and swelling which left him with no brain activity. Hours later, he was transported to a pediatric intensive care unit at a medical center in the City of Syracuse, Onondaga County. He was declared brain dead, removed from life support and died on October 22, 2007. Based upon subsequent autopsies, it was estimated that the injuries had been sustained between 7:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on October 18, 2007, the evening preceding the 911 call.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with depraved indifference murder and manslaughter in the first and second degrees, alleging that she had assaulted her son and failed to seek prompt medical treatment, causing his death. At trial, it was established that defendant was home alone with the child from approximately 3:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. on October 18, 2007. For two time intervals of one hour or less, at approximately 2:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., she went shopping and left the child at home alone with her live-in boyfriend, Tommy Marian. Both Manan and defendant testified, denying responsibility for, or awareness of, the fatal injuries prior to waking up on October 19, 2007. A jury found defendant guilty as charged, rejecting her defense that Manan was responsible for the child’s injuries and death. Sentenced to a prison term of 22 years to life, defendant now appeals.

Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was legally [993]*993insufficient to establish that she, rather than Manan, inflicted the fatal injuries to her son or that she acted with the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference to human life.1 Also, she challenges the jury’s verdict as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. We reject defendant’s claims, and affirm.

The key disputed question at trial was who inflicted the child’s fatal injuries on the evening of October 18, 2007. It was uncontroverted that only defendant and Manan were alone with the child that day, both denied inflicting the injuries or observing the other doing so, and there were no eyewitnesses to, or direct evidence of, the assault. Viewing the compelling circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the People, however, “there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Acosta, 80 NY2d 665, 672 [1993] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), including defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the child’s fatal injuries.

To begin, Manan — who was never charged with any involvement — testified, denying hitting or slapping the child in the head or body that day (or ever); the jury clearly credited Manan’s testimony, as was its province having observed his demeanor firsthand. Numerous witnesses testified to their contact with defendant, Manan and the child at the apartment during the week prior to this assault, including observations of a variety of bruises of different ages and severity. Defendant provided many different explanations, both before and after the child received emergency medical treatment, as to the causes of the bruises. On Wednesday, October 17, 2007, a Child Protective Services investigator made an unannounced visit to defendant’s apartment and observed brown, older2 bruises to the child’s cheek and temple, which defendant attributed to him falling days earlier and to another child hitting him. The child was walking and eating and appeared fine. Defendant gave a similar account to a friend who spent most of that day at the apartment and observed the child warmly greet Manan upon his return.

[994]*994On Thursday, October 18, 2007, Jolene Barrett, defendant’s friend, visited the apartment at around 2:00 p.m. She observed green colored, older bruises on the child’s cheek, which defendant said were caused by the child jumping on furniture and a closet bar falling on him. Barrett testified that the child was acting normally and playing. When Manan came home, Barrett and defendant went shopping, leaving the child with Manan for about one hour, from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Manan testified that he played games with the child and, after defendant came home, he went out and did not return until 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., leaving defendant alone with the child. Defendant testified that, upon her return home around 3:30 p.m., the child had only a minor rug burn on his chin, but no other new injuries. Barrett spoke with defendant by telephone around 7:30 p.m., and defendant confirmed that Manan was still out and that she was alone with the child. Between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., defendant’s friend, Lucille Rotger visited the apartment while Manan was still out. Critically, she saw the child lying on the couch face down, very quiet, with his hands in his face. When he raised his head, Rotger observed that his face was swollen and he had bruises on his forehead, both cheeks and his face, temple-to-chin, and they were purple, which medical testimony established were fresh or newer bruises. At trial, defendant denied that the child was in that condition. When asked by Rotger about the bruising, defendant again attributed these new injuries to a fall and another child hitting him. The child was able to walk, but did not play with Rotger’s kids.

Defendant then went grocery shopping with Rotger, leaving the child alone with Manan for about 45 minutes. Manan testified that he played with the child and then gave him Tylenol and put him to bed after the child said his head hurt. Defendant returned home around 8:45 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. and, according to Manan, she became “really, really mad” when he indicated that he would be going out again; upon his return 45 minutes later, defendant was calm and acted “strange.” The child was asleep and they went to bed. Manan testified that the next morning he found the child lying in bed with labored breathing, covered in bruises and unresponsive; he alerted defendant, who called 911. During that call, defendant became angry at the dispatcher for asking “too many f . . . ing questions” and threw the phone and got dressed; Manan continued the emergency call. On the way to the hospital, defendant rode in the front of the ambulance, having been told that she could not sit in back with her son; she asked no questions and did not look back at him.

When interviewed by police, defendant initially falsely stated [995]*995that she, Manan and the child were home all evening on October 18, 2007. Hours later, she told police that she went to the grocery store around 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 f.m. and, upon her return, the child’s behavior had changed; the child told her that Manan had hit him and his head hurt, so she gave him Tylenol and laid down in bed with him. When questioned in Syracuse — after Miranda

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

Related

People v. Bohn
2025 NY Slip Op 05846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People v. Finch
2020 NY Slip Op 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Warrington
146 A.D.3d 1233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
SMITH, III, WILLIE D., PEOPLE v
145 A.D.3d 1628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Nelligan
135 A.D.3d 1075 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Waite
108 A.D.3d 985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Hakim-Peters
92 A.D.3d 1030 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Snyder
91 A.D.3d 1206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Munck
92 A.D.3d 63 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A.D.3d 992, 915 N.Y.S.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mclain-nyappdiv-2011.