Document: 431 U.S. 145 97 S.Ct. 1730 52 L.Ed.2d 203 Robert J. HENDERSON, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Petitioner,v.Barry Warren KIBBE. No. 75-1906. Argued March 1, 1977. Decided May 16, Syllabus Respondent and his codefendant, after robbing an intoxicated man in their car, abandoned him at night on unlighted rural road where the visibility was obscured by blowing snow. Twenty or thirty minutes later, while helplessly seated road, struck killed a speeding truck. accomplice were subsequently convicted New York trial court of grand larceny, robbery, second-degree murder. A statute provides that person is guilty murder when "(u)nder circumstances evincing depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages conduct which creates grave risk death another person, thereby causes person." Although element causation stressed arguments both defense counsel prosecution trial, neither party requested instruction meaning "thereby causes" language none given. The judge, however, did read jury indictment tracking statutory language, advised all elements crime charged must be proved beyond reasonable doubt "person acts with respect result described defining offense aware consciously disregards substantial unjustifiable such will occur." Respondent's conviction upheld appeal, Court Appeals rejecting argument truck driver's constituted intervening cause relieved defendants criminal responsibility for victim's death. then filed habeas corpus petition Federal District Court, refused review, as not raising question constitutional dimension, respondent's attack sufficiency charge. reversed, holding, authority In re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368, since Constitution requires proof every fact necessary constitute charged, failure instruct essential complex issue this case created impermissible had made finding requires. Held : judge's error requiring grant relief. Pp. 153-157. (a) omission create danger failed make factual determination required supra, there can no from record jurors informed decision, they instructed doubt. 153-154. (b) opinion makes it clear adequate would have told if ultimate harm should been foreseen being reasonably related defendants' conduct, regarded having caused There reason believe reached different verdict By returning necessarily found, accordance court's recklessness, respondent "aware disregarded risk" occur. This logically included foreseeable. 154-157. 534 F.2d 493, reversed. Lillian Zeisel Cohen, City, petitioner. Sheila Ginsberg, respondent. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered Court. 1 petitioner's custody pursuant second- degree presented us whether State Disagreeing divided panel Second Circuit, we hold not. 2 On evening December 30, 1970, codefendant encountered thoroughly named Stafford bar Rochester, N. Y.1 After observing display least two $100 bills,2 decided rob agreed drive nearby town. While slapped several times, took money, and, search concealed funds, forced lower trousers remove boots. They unlighted, still state partial undress, without coat glasses. temperature near zero, snow, snow banks flanked roadway. time between 9:30 9:40 p. m. 3 At about 10 m., traffic lane quarter mile nearest lighted building, pickup driver testified traveling 50 miles per hour 40-mile zone, first approaching cars flashed its lights presumably warning understand. Immediately passed, saw sitting hands air. swerved nor braked vehicle before hit Stafford. pronounced dead upon arrival local hospital. 4 murder.3 Only murder, defined Y. Penal Law § 125.25(2) (McKinney 1975), now challenged. That "(a) second degree" (Emphasis added.) 5 Defense argued negligence truckdriver, rather than action, Stafford's death, could anticipated fatal accident.4 other hand, foreseeable occurred but who therefore death.5 Neither judge requirement cause(d) person," did, explained some language. He circumstance occur exists." App. 89 (emphasis added). 6 Appellate Division Supreme affirmed conviction. People v. Kibbe, 41 App.Div.2d 228, 342 N.Y.S.2d 386 (1973). challenge instructions court, Judge Cardamone dissented ground charge explain include discussion mental state. expressed "the jury, proper instruction, concluded automobile remote cause."6 7 also affirmed. 35 N.Y.2d 407, 362 848, 321 N.E.2d 773 (1974). It identified only serious raised rejected contention held "not intended actor. suffice said doubt, indeed here said, something accused."7 consider adequacy because court. 8 writ United States Northern York, relying 28 U.S.C. 2254. raise dimension that, more, reviewable federal proceeding." 21. 9 Circuit 493 (1976). view strategy consistently challenged causation, majority any objection deliberate bypass precluding relief,8 "obviously inadvertent" omission. Id., 497. merits, crime, 364, 1072, requires.9 Because decision appeared conflict Court's holding Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 94 396, 38 granted certiorari, 429 815, 55, 74. 11 argues either independent grounds: (1) Winship ; (2) assuming reach question, so guidance might rendered under instructions. fair evaluation context entire rejection arguments.10 12 * has "that Due Process Clause protects accused against except charged." U.S., S.Ct., 1073. One facts prove As held, evidence plainly sufficient equally conclude finding. 13 decide. counsel. expressly refers "cause(d) tracks language; given copy use during deliberations. Whether correctly characterized law applicable issue, surely decided. follows predicated merit. II 14 An appraisal significance comparison actually those Orderly procedure respective adversaries' views how enable deliver accurate minimize committing reversible error.11 rare improper justify reversal court.12 15 (3, 4) burden demonstrating erroneous prejudicial support collateral validity judgment even greater showing establish plain direct appeal.13 proceeding "whether ailing itself infected resulting violates due process", 147, 400, merely undesirable, erroneous, 'universally condemned,' " id., 146, 400. 16 case, especially heavy given; claim prejudice based give explanation reading element. omission, incomplete less likely misstatement law. Since escaped notice until dissenting intermediate appellate level, probability substantially affected deliberations seems remote. 17 submit draft courts apparently previous occasion construe aspect statute, cannot know certainty precisely what matter We do found case; gives kind acceptable. 18 (5) "ultimate harm" "something accused." entirely reference foreseeable, or, more narrowly, foreseeable.14 event, satisfied one "should foreseen." Thus, 19 may evaluated acted "recklessly," 148, 149. verdict, disregard(ed) risk"15 disregards" foresee entails. jury's him. 20 strict sense, additional foreseeability cumulative specifically covered But logical assume responded issues comprehensively explained, verdict.16 Accordingly, reject suggestion complete "so violated process." Even unlikely assumption possibility too speculative conclusion committed. 21 22 ordered. 23 REHNQUIST part consideration case. 24 Chief BURGER, concurring judgment. I concur judgment, find unnecessary resolve considered 155-157, ante. my view, precluded granting relief 2254 object waived error. why belated claim. Cf. Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 85 564, 408 (1965). 26 certain defendant's comply procedural requirements deemed waiver rights, unless shown tactical decision. See Fay Noia, 372 391, 83 822, 837 (1963); Humphrey Cady, 405 504, 92 1048, 31 394 (1972). These cases, involved post -trial omissions technical nature jeopardize interests. Mid are different. "It thing fail utilize (state) appeal process cure defect already inheres conviction, quite forgo making exception prevent ever occurring." Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 704, 95 1881, 1892, 44 508 n. (1975) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring);* see Estelle Williams, 425 501, 513-514, 96 1691, 1697, 48 126 (1976) (POWELL, concurring). failing charge, injected into very type designed avoid. overlook attack. 27 "deliberate bypass" doctrine extended midtrial impair simply barred examining substance claim, rest our ground. pathologist alcohol content blood indicative "very intoxication." 58. Tr. 723. sentenced concurrent terms years life conviction; 5-15 robbery indeterminate term up four larceny "Let's look indictment. Count says important part. defendant, 'Felon(i)ously engaged wit, George Stafford.' So, you accent put reaching particular proven ". . (Y)ou going honestly come three people, drinking, these two, client position perceive risk, disregard it. Perceive sit middle northbound lane, motorist distracted flashing opposite froze wheel, didn't swerve, brake, violating speeding, matters worse, time, situation was, low beams on, lot anticipation. looking forward. Are supposed anticipate somebody break move something? think doubt." 68. "As mentioned does count contain require proves defendant Now, well know, members obviously most preceding If walked downtown, went across bridges couldn't swim pushed over drowned can't swim, suppose say, well, swim. course, over. same here. Sure, immediate, preceding, motor vehicle. get there? Or differently, defendants? And you, walk out East River Road. driven there. His glasses taken identification pants around ankles." 75-76. App.Div., 231, N.Y.S.2d, 390. added: "There provisions dealing civil relevant context. submitted order decide unjust appellants liable murderers chain events occurred. Such approach suggested American Institute Model Code (see Comment, 2.03, pp. 133, 134 Tentative Draft 4)." 231-232, dissent cite describing N.Y.2d, 412, 851-852, N.E.2d, 776. "We subscribe actions sufficiently ensuing imposition liability, recognize, standard serve basis tort liability. Applying criteria actions, activities 1970 warrant sanctions. engaging properly despicable course Kibbe Krall left eyeglasses which, attending circumstances, extricate himself whose condition protect elements. dispute evinced argue just miraculously rescued good (S)amaritan. accept argument. little frozen undress remained shoulder road. alternative highway, condition, another, clearly foreboded death." 413, 852, 517, 1056, 394; 427-428, 438-439, 842-843, 848-849, 837. "The definition permitted them inferred succeeded abandonment Krall. jurors, laymen, misconstrue mandatory legal standards apply. Error compounded fine distinctions made. assuredly produced force, Blake's operation truck, liability antecedent force action depend difficult supervening W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal 257-263 (1972) (collecting cases). few cases provide similar suggest controlling questions original actor victim easily within grasp extricated danger." F.2d, 498-499 (footnotes omitted). dissent, Mansfield reasoned counsel, general attributable solely truckdriver. though helpful, "In determining effect outset well-established proposition single judged artificial isolation, viewed overall Boyd States, 271 104, 107, 46 442, 70 L.Ed. 857 (1926). mean never rise level error, Cool 409 100, 93 354, 34 335 (1972), recognize commonly culmination includes testimony witnesses, receipt exhibits evidence, judge. Thus many instructions, components conviction." 146-147, Allis 155 117, 122-123, 36, 38, 39 91; Harvey Tyler, Wall. 328, 339, 871; see, e. g., Lopez 373 427, 436, 1381, 1386, 462. Namet 179, 190, 1151, 1156, 278, mention "extravagant protection." 108, 857. strong interest preserving finality judgments, Blackledge Allison, 63, 1621, 136 (Powell, concurring); Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 256-266, 2041, 2062-2067, 36 854 concurring), orderly procedure, overcome justified. For impossible, practical matter, retrial. 412-413, passage quoted 7, emphasizes obvious freezing, suggesting need precise manner Supra, charging recklessness N.Y. 15.05(3) 1975). fact, favorable prosecution. example, patterned following example 260 (1972): "A, intent kill B, wounds leaving lying unconscious dark night, C, driving along runs kills B. Here C's act coincidence response done, thus subsequent undoubtedly above illustration." probably gave. Mullaney, State's highest ruled trial. Rather, notes, ante, 150, rule

Category: 0