Opinion ID: 4025411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Depraved Indifference Murder Conviction

Text: [¶36] Roxanne also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that she committed depraved indifference murder. We apply the same standard of review and examine the facts in the light most favorable to the court’s judgment to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State proved all of the elements of the charged offense. See id. ¶ 7. [¶37] A defendant may be convicted of depraved indifference murder if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the conduct was voluntary, representing the defendant’s conscious decision; (2) the conduct caused the victim’s death; and (3) when looking objectively, the fact-finder is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was, as the court here stated, so bad, brutal, savage, revolting or shocking, that, although the defendant may not have acted with the actual subjective intent to kill the victim, the fact-finder can nonetheless impute the highest degree of blameworthiness. See State v. Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 39, 915 A.2d 421; see also State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58, 63 (Me. 1981) (“[D]eath-producing 22 conduct will justify a verdict of guilty of depraved indifference murder if a jury could find that [the] conduct was so heinous in the eyes of the law as to constitute murder.” (quotation marks omitted)). [¶38] Citing United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954), Roxanne contends that, as a predicate to all criminal liability, the person must have fair notice that her conduct is forbidden, and, because she suffered from multiple mental health and medical diagnoses, she could not know that her behavior was proscribed. She argues that it is inherent in this predicate that a person’s individual capacities are always a factor when they so significantly and severely deviate from the norm. Contrary to Roxanne’s contention, Harriss establishes an objective standard and requires only that a statute give “a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute.” Id.; see also State v. Flick, 425 A.2d 167, 174 (Me. 1981). No special dispensation for individuals diagnosed with mental health conditions exists in our case law to alter the objective standard we have enunciated, and Roxanne cites none in her brief. Roxanne also argues that the existence of several mental health diagnoses raises more than a reasonable doubt as to her ability to form the requisite intent; however “[t]he 23 offense does not require evidence of a defendant’s subjective state of mind.” Thongsavanh, 2007 ME 20, ¶ 38, 915 A.2d 421. [¶39] Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the record supports the court’s finding that Roxanne acted with depraved indifference to human life. Her violence against her husband lasted for several hours, and the litany of the injuries he sustained as recited by the medical examiner, including a fractured hyoid bone, a sliced-open eyeball, and punctured scrotal sac, would lead a rational fact-finder to conclude that Roxanne’s conduct was so outrageous and revolting as to constitute depraved indifference murder. See id. ¶ 39 (stating that “[c]onduct manifests a depraved indifference to the value of human life when it is highly charged with death-inducing potential and demonstrates a total lack of concern that a person may die or suffer as a result of the conduct”).