Mixed Verdict For College Student Evan Potts In Deadly Road Rage Incident

MINEOLA, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — A Queens College student has been convicted of criminally negligent homicide in a 2009 road rage incident.

Evan Potts, 24, of Oceanside, was acquitted Monday by a jury in Nassau County of the more serious charge of manslaughter.

Prosecutors say Potts ran down Ian Sharinn, of Long Beach, on May 15, 2009, after the two got into an argument on the street.

Potts claimed he accidentally cut off Sharinn at an intersection and following a two-mile verbal argument — shouting at one another as they drove side by side — Sharinn exited his yellow Porsche twice and confronted him.

Potts said Sharinn hit and kicked his rented Nissan Altima and boxed him in, and he panicked. Potts called 9-1-1 as Sharinn grabbed the Altima door frame. Potts accelerated and Sharinn fell beneath the tires and was crushed, witnesses had said.

Potts’ attorney said his client was trying to defend himself against Sharinn when he accelerated forward and struck him. He also claimed the victim had an issue controlling his rage and that the 6-foot-5, 250-pound Sharinn was pursuing the smaller Potts like a predator.

Prosecutors argued that what Potts did was inexcusable, no matter his fear.

He faces up to 4 years in prison. Potts will be sentenced Aug. 16.


One Comment

  1. can't run from the truth says:


    1) no idea where you got that lie. Pure lies man. In fact I can prove its a lie because it’s not medically possible to come to that conclusion. You made it up.
    2) the precise accuracy of your statement may possibly be true. That sentence is as definite in logic as yours, in other words, it meant nothing. Thanks for wasting our time with innuendo without saying a thing.
    3) trace amounts is what I read, no idea if that was proved. Probably a quote from the lawyer whose job it is to misinform everyone to save his clients’ butt. For sure he wasn’t driving while on drugs. A quick google search of Potts and drug arrest should make things much clearer how disingenuous your statement is.
    4) still doesn’t take away the reality. The reality was Evan lurched forward, paused, turned his wheels towards Ian looked him in the eyes and hit the gas. That account is easy to search for as well. That’s murder.

    I haven’t heard the 911 call, I’ve only read the news. The report said Potts called Ian a “big stud” and then hit the gas. How is that a mistake? There was only one victim in this, and that guy is now dead and people like you are throwing salt on the wounds of his poor family and friends with your lies and innuendo. I will be civil, but I’m no longer going to let you lie in a public forum anymore. It’s not right, it’s not fair, and it’s the most disgusting thing I have ever witnessed in my life.

    1. Captain Hindsight says:

      If you’ve only read the news, then you can only unfortunately have access to a limited amount of information. The news reports quote the prosecutor as saying these things, but unless you were there or spoke to the jury, it’s hard to say you know what was proved and what was actually on the jury’s mind when they made their decision. If you were so interested in the trial maybe you should have stopped on by.

  2. Self Defense says:

    I remember this incident well when it first hit the news. Actually, I am surprised these things do not happen daily, I see a$$holes on the road every day. Anyway, my support is FULLY behind Evan Potts (the defendant). Not sure what else this kid could have done in this situation. Granted, he did not back down in the initial verbal exchange. But he then became the prey to Mr. Sharinn’s roid-fueled pursuit. Mr. Potts stayed in his vehicle the entire time, whereas Mr. Sharinn 1) cornered his “prey”, 2) got out of his vehicle, and 3) started wailing on the defendant’s car…..and 4) was looking to physically tear into Mr. Potts. So it is pretty east to see who was the true aggressor in this. Mr. Sharinn wanted to be a “tough guy” and underestimated his prey’s ability to defend himself. The judge should nullify this unfair verdict. And furthermore warn the roid-head “victim’s” family to never harass or contact Mr. Potts or his family. Ever.

    1. Not a shill says:

      Ok, listen your facts are all wrong.

      1) no steroids are found in the victims blood. NONE. Stop slandering about that.
      2) using “prey” and “rip into” are your slanderous accounts and have nothing based in reality.
      3) stop shilling as an independent commenter. It’s blindingly obvious you are related to or a friend of Potts. It’s sad really. It will only prove further that you and people related to Potts will do anything to lie and cover up the horrible act of killing a man.
      4) what’s your appeal going to be about? The justice systems worked and the jury returned their verdict. Independent peers heard the evidence and gave their decision. Potts will do his time and if he grows from it, well great for him. But remember, Ian is dead and nothing will bring him back, he can’t walk free one day.


      1. Ted Schickler says:

        1) Yes no steroids were found although tests were done proving his blood had elements in it that could only be that way if he were taking steroids. It also showed he had taken other drugs, marijuana to be exact.
        2) “prey” and “rip into” are fine accounts of what Potts may have been thinking or feeling.
        3) you have no knowledge of who the above is just because he decided to take a side means nothing. Also their is no coverup, Potts killed that man but he didn’t intend to or want to, it’s recored on the 911 tape, listen to it and you can hear that.
        4) Their will be an appeal and possibly an overturned verdict, no one knows because it will be a different jury and a different case, do you really think prison will teach someone not to try and run away from a perceived threat again, I doubt it.


  3. Anon says:

    The comment with Evan’s facebook should be removed immediately and the fact that it is still up is disgusting. That is an invasion of the privacy of someone who is going through a horrendous experience.

  4. Ruby says:

    The young man has already been punished enough by the prosecution and the victim’s family. The victum was a bully & Evan was also a victim.

  5. The Facts says:

    This appears to be a serious miscarriage of justice. The trial judge can, and should, vacate the jury’s conviction because it is not supported by the evidence.

    1. anon says:

      yes, and too bad the jury didn’t hear about the defendants other brushes with the law and too bad his teachers and pricipal in oceanside schools he attended couldn’t tell the jury what a problem and troublemaker he was. how threatened can you actually be in a closed car? gimme a break. now a decent human being is dead. shame on the system!

  6. Driver says:

    A bunch of dummies on that jury

  7. Claude says:

    I also think there was reasonable doubt as to intent and state of mind. He called 911 during the incident, so how can it be said that he intended to run down the man? It seems to me that the prosecution may have been overzealous in this case.

  8. Joseph Didonato says:

    He should have walked free this guy was all roided up and got out of his car, not the other way around!!!

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Watch & Listen LIVE