People v. Baldner
People v. Baldner
Opinion
People v Baldner (2025 NY Slip Op 03602)
| People v Baldner |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03602 |
| Decided on June 12, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on June 12, 2025
No. 55
v
Christopher Baldner, Appellant.
John Ingrassia, for appellant.
Matthew Keller, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
"In the context of a grand jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998] [internal citation omitted]). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes . . . ." (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). "That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from [the evidence presented to the grand jury] is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry where, as here, the grand jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (People v Edwards, 36 NY3d 946, 947 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
The evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to demonstrate that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life (see Penal Law §§ 125.25 [2], 120.25). "[A] person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life—that person does not care how the risk turns out" (People v Maldonado, 24 NY3d 48, 53 [2014], quoting People v Lewie, 17 NY3d 348, 359 [2011]). Defendant's arguments are essentially challenges to the weight of the evidence, and thus not properly considered on appellate review of a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an indictment (see People v Swamp, 84 NY2d 725, 730 [1995] ["The reviewing court must . . . defer( ) all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence"]). Even considering only the evidence as to which defendant raises no admissibility objections, we conclude that the evidence [*2]presented to the grand jury was sufficient to establish prima facie proof of the crimes charged (see People v Avant, 33 NY2d 265, 271 [1973]).
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided June 12, 2025
Opinion
People v Baldner (2025 NY Slip Op 03602)
<table align="center"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center"><b>People v Baldner</b></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2025 NY Slip Op 03602</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Decided on June 12, 2025</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Court of Appeals</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <br><br> Decided on June 12, 2025 <div></div> <br>No. 55 <br><br><div><b>[*1]The People & c., Respondent, <br><br>v<br><br>Christopher Baldner, Appellant. </b></div><br><br> <br><br> <p>John Ingrassia, for appellant.</p> <p>Matthew Keller, for respondent.</p> <br><br>
<p>MEMORANDUM:</p> <p>The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.</p> <p>"In the context of a grand jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (<i>People v Bello</i>, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998] [internal citation omitted]). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes . . . ." (<i>id.</i> [internal quotation marks omitted]). "That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from [the evidence presented to the grand jury] is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry where, as here, the grand jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (<i>People v Edwards</i>, 36 NY3d 946, 947 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]).</p> <p>The evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to demonstrate that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life (<i>see </i>Penal Law §§ 125.25 [2], 120.25). "[A] person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life—that person does not care how the risk turns out" (<i>People v Maldonado</i>, 24 NY3d 48, 53 [2014], quoting <i>People v Lewie</i>, 17 NY3d 348, 359 [2011]). Defendant's arguments are essentially challenges to the weight of the evidence, and thus not properly considered on appellate review of a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an indictment (<i>see People v Swamp</i>, 84 NY2d 725, 730 [1995] ["The reviewing court must . . . defer( ) all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence"]). Even considering only the evidence as to which defendant raises no admissibility objections, we conclude that the evidence [*2]presented to the grand jury was sufficient to establish prima facie proof of the crimes charged (<i>see People v Avant</i>, 33 NY2d 265, 271 [1973]).</p> <p>Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.</p> <p>Decided June 12, 2025</p>
<br><br><div>
</div>
Opinion
| People v Baldner |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03602 |
| Decided on June 12, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on June 12, 2025
No. 55
v
Christopher Baldner, Appellant.
John Ingrassia, for appellant.
Matthew Keller, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
"In the context of a grand jury proceeding, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998] [internal citation omitted]). "The reviewing court's inquiry is limited to whether the facts, if proven, and the inferences that logically flow from those facts supply proof of every element of the charged crimes . . . ." (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). "That other, innocent inferences could possibly be drawn from [the evidence presented to the grand jury] is irrelevant to the sufficiency inquiry where, as here, the grand jury could rationally have drawn the guilty inference" (People v Edwards, 36 NY3d 946, 947 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
The evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to demonstrate that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life (see Penal Law §§ 125.25 [2], 120.25). "[A] person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life—that person does not care how the risk turns out" (People v Maldonado, 24 NY3d 48, 53 [2014], quoting People v Lewie, 17 NY3d 348, 359 [2011]). Defendant's arguments are essentially challenges to the weight of the evidence, and thus not properly considered on appellate review of a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an indictment (see People v Swamp, 84 NY2d 725, 730 [1995] ["The reviewing court must . . . defer( ) all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence"]). Even considering only the evidence as to which defendant raises no admissibility objections, we conclude that the evidence [*2]presented to the grand jury was sufficient to establish prima facie proof of the crimes charged (see People v Avant, 33 NY2d 265, 271 [1973]).
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Decided June 12, 2025
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.