Wednesday's Weird But True Legal Cases - Vol XIV

Tonight's weird (but true) involves a criminal prosecution commenced by the Kings County District Attorney's Office in relation to an act of school violence. In People v. Hiraldo, 177 Misc.2d 33, 676 N.Y.S.2d 775 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1998) the Court considered a matter in which a sixteen year old student was prosecuted for manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide as a result of an incident with a school aide which resulted in the death of the aide. Although the matter was submitted to a grand jury, the Judge had other ideas.

As noted by the Court in its opinion, the facts presented to the grand jury were that:

the defendant was observed punching and slapping the victim numerous times in the school locker room. When the defendant ran away, the victim chased after him and caught him. The victim was then observed kicking the defendant. When the defendant again ran away down some stairs, the victim chased after him, went inside the dean's office, came out and subsequently collapsed in front of that office. The victim was then removed to a hospital where he died the next day from a heart attack.

Although the defendant normally does not testify before a grand jury, the defendant in this matter did so. The defendant testified that the incident arose when he tried to get into the locker room to get lunch money from his coat, but the aide attempted to deny him access. According to the defendant, he went into the locker room and was stopped and grabbed by the victim. The defendant testified that in the process “I was swinging my hand so he can release me, because I was scared.” The defendant also gave details of his whereabouts before and after the incident which the District Attorney demonstrated were false, through the testimony of several teachers and prior inconsistent statements by the defendant.

In addition to the testimony of the defendant, the prosecution also offered the testimony of the medical examiner who said that the victim's only external injuries were “three small contusions on the right side of the face.” The medical examiner opined that the contusions were consistent with the victim having been hit with a hand or fist. He further stated that:

the initial examination of the victim revealed that he had died as a result of “cardiac arrest due to arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease following physical assault.” The victim had an abnormally big heart, had had previous heart valve replacement and coronary bypass surgery, and had obvious scarring from a prior heart attack. The medical examiner concluded that 'What happened is that when you have a heart that is not functioning right, if you get mad, if you get scared, if somebody is-if you get into an argument, what will happen is that your heart will start beating faster than it should be.... [His heart] could not take it and then it collapsed, he expired.'

Following the close of testimony, the grand jury indicted the defendant on charges of manslaughter in the second degree, attempted assault in the second degree, and attempted assault in the third degree. The Defendant then moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the testimony as to his actions did not rise to the level required for the charges.

In determining the motion, the court first set out the standard for reckless manslaughter explaining that "there must be evidence when a defendant acts that “he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that death will occur." The court found that there was no evidence presented to the grand jury to establish that the defendant was aware of the victim's heart condition during the attempted assault. Furthermore, there was also no evidence that the defendant sought out the victim. Indeed the evidence indicated that the victim chased the defendant after he ran away, was able to catch him and then kicked the defendant who continued to flee. As such, the Court dismissed this charge.

In relation to the lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide, the court also dismissed the charge, noting that:

The absence of any indication from the appearance of the victim that he was in ill health or public information about the existence of his heart condition detracts from a claim that the defendant failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. This is not a case where a bar employee forcefully propels an intoxicated patron out the front door of a bar, down four steps to concrete pavement where that victim becomes unconscious and later dies from skull fractures and brain hemorrhage ... The striking of a 66-year-old man in the face which results in three small contusions and no other internal injury would not lead an average person to perceive a risk that cardiac arrest and death would result.

Finally, as to the charge of attempted assault in the second degree, the Court found that there was "absolutely no evidence to establish that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim. Since there was no evidence that the defendant struck particularly forceful blows or persisted in the attack when he was caught running away, the lack of an intent to cause serious physical injury is apparent."

As a post script, it should be noted that the Court did allow prosecution for the crime of assault in the third degree to proceed as there was evidence that the defendant did intend to cause some physical injury.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site such as JBlog, please feel free to click here to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!