Opinion ID: 2141968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statutory Categories of Homicide

Text: With the adoption of the revised Penal Law in 1965, the Legislature codified five basic categories of homicide, which have remained essentially unchanged since that time: intentional murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), [1] depraved indifference murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), intentional manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]), reckless manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]) and criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10). Although the culpable acts in each case culminate in the same tragic result  the death of another  these crimes, each necessarily meant to proscribe different conduct, are distinguished by the level of blameworthiness attributable to the actor who commits them. Intentional murder and depraved indifference murder are equivalent in that both are classified at the highest grade and carry the same penalty; other categories of homicide, lesser in grade, are punished less severely. In so classifying the range of unlawful killings condemned by the criminal law, the Legislature has enacted a statutory system in which each category of homicide is defined uniquely and distinctly from every other, thus ensuring that a killer's punishment is commensurate with the degree of criminal culpability established by the Penal Law. What precisely distinguishes depraved indifference murder from other homicides has of late generated significant discussion, [2] as the number of indictments for depraved indifference murder  often charged in conjunction with intentional murder  has increased dramatically. Whether because jurors conclude that anyone who would intentionally take a life is depraved, or because they mistakenly believe that depraved indifference murder is a lesser offense than intentional murder and are reluctant to convict of the most serious charge, the availability of a depraved indifference murder count has led juries to convict of that charge even though the evidence did not support it ( see e.g. People v Hafeez, 100 NY2d 253 [2003]; People v Gonzalez, 1 NY3d 464 [2004]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266 [2004]; see also Policano v Herbert, 430 F3d 82 [2d Cir 2005]). The proliferation of the use of depraved indifference murder as a fallback theory under which to charge intentional killers reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the depraved indifference murder statute. [D]epraved indifference murder may not be properly charged in the overwhelming majority of homicides that are prosecuted in New York ( Payne, 3 NY3d at 270). Rather, because the statute requires circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), depraved indifference murder properly applies only to a small, and finite, category of cases where the conduct is at least as morally reprehensible as intentional murder. The cases now before us, two additional examples of the misapplication of the depraved indifference murder statute, compel us  for now and for the future  to revisit what is unique and distinctive about that crime as defined by the Legislature. The purpose here is not to take anything away from juries ( see concurring/dissenting op at 227)  a valued and essential element of our justice system  but rather to provide the guidance that will enable prosecutors, juries, trial courts and reviewing courts to function without risk of reversal.