People v. Bender

2025 NY Slip Op 01678 · Appellate Division, Third Department · March 20, 2025 · No. 113219 CR-22-2119

Summary

This Appellate Division decision affirms the defendant's conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree, holding that the evidence legally sufficed to prove he acted with depraved indifference to human life during a high-speed vehicular rampage. The court also upheld the trial court's exclusion of untimely psychiatric evidence and found no error regarding prosecutorial comments or sentencing severity. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion, ruling that his speedy trial claim was waived and unpreserved.

Court
Appellate Division, Third Department
Writing for the Court
Clark, J.P.; Reynolds Fitzgerald; Ceresia; McShan; Powers
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
March 20, 2025
Docket number
113219 CR-22-2119
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment of conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree and from an order denying a CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment without a hearing.
Standard of review
De novo for sufficiency of the evidence; abuse of discretion for the preclusion of psychiatric evidence; waiver of speedy‑trial rights reviewed for preservation.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Donald Bender v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencepost-conviction reliefspeedy trial

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidencepost-conviction reliefappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the mens rea of depraved indifference required for reckless endangerment in the first degree.
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s late filing of a CPL 250.10 notice to introduce psychiatric evidence.
  3. Whether the defendant’s speedy‑trial rights were waived and the claim preserved.

Holdings

  1. The conviction is affirmed; the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion; the denial is affirmed.
  3. The speedy‑trial claim is unpreserved and therefore dismissed.

Key quotations

When reviewing a legal sufficiency claim, we must determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that each and every element of the charged crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Factual background

On June 27, 2018 the defendant drove a sport‑utility vehicle on Central Avenue in Colonie, Albany County, striking multiple vehicles, injuring several occupants, and ultimately crashing into a house. Witnesses observed the defendant weaving, accelerating, and repeatedly striking other vehicles while appearing awake and angry. The vehicle’s brake was never applied and the gas pedal was fully depressed during the final segment of the crash.

Procedural history

The County Court of Albany County convicted the defendant of reckless endangerment in the first degree and denied his motion to vacate the conviction. The defendant appealed the conviction and, by permission, the denial of the motion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…