Court Opinion

ID: 9876061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:49:31.460144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:07.597304
License: Public Domain

*1280Leventhal, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part, and votes to modify the judgment, on the law, by vacating the convictions of murder in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, vehicular assault in the first degree, aggravated operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as a felony, driving while ability impaired by drugs, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, and reckless driving, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment, and to affirm the judgment as so modified, with the following memorandum: Since I believe that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder, I respectfully dissent in part.
“A verdict is legally sufficient when, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the People, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “A sufficiency inquiry requires a court to marshal competent facts most favorable to the People and determine whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained [their] burden of proof” (id. at 349).
A person is guilty of depraved indifference murder when, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, [such person] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). Depraved indifference is a culpable mental state which “is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life” (People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288, 296 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Reflecting wickedness, evil or inhumanity, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts, depraved indifference is embodied in conduct that is so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to render the actor as culpable as one whose conscious objective is to kill” (People v Suarez, 6 NY3d 202, 214 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Quintessential examples are firing into a crowd; driving an automobile along a crowded sidewalk at high speed; opening the lion’s cage at the zoo; placing a time bomb in a public place; poisoning a well from which people are ac*1281customed to draw water; opening a drawbridge as a train is about to pass over it and dropping stones from an overpass onto a busy highway” (id. [citations omitted]). “[I]ntoxicated driving cases in general, although clearly examples of dangerous behavior, are not thought of as ‘quintessential’ cases of depraved indifference” (People v Heidgen, 22 NY3d 259, 276 [2013]).
In People v Heidgen, the Court of Appeals, while stating that “intoxicated driving cases that present circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life are likely to be few and far between,” found that the “evidence in each of these unusually egregious cases was legally sufficient to support the convictions” (id. at 267). The defendant Heidgen “drove the wrong way on the highway for over two miles without reacting to other drivers coming at him, car horns, or wrong way signage. Perhaps most significantly, more than one witness testified that defendant appeared to follow, or track, the headlights of oncoming vehicles” (id. at 277). The jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant Heidgen drove knowing that he was on the wrong side of a highway, and that he “engage [d] in what amount[ed] to a high speed game of chicken” (id.).
The defendant Taylor drove on a local road at speeds between 80 and 90 miles per hour, without headlights, on the wrong side of the road, and struck a pedestrian who was crossing the street (id. at 271-272). Although she perceived at least some of the obstacles in her path, notably the pedestrian victim prior to striking him, the defendant Taylor, who was wearing her seat belt, did not slow down, sound her horn, or make any attempt to swerve to avoid the pedestrian (see id. at 272, 278). After striking the pedestrian, and without slowing, the defendant Taylor continued driving in the lane for oncoming traffic, ran a red light, and struck a vehicle that was stopped at that light, injuring the vehicle’s occupants (see id. at 272).
The defendant McPherson drove at excessive speed in the wrong direction on the Southern State Parkway for approximately five miles (see id. at 273, 279). During that time— more than four minutes—he did not appear to apply his brakes and several oncoming cars swerved to avoid him (see id. at 279). He also passed numerous signs that should have alerted him that he was traveling in the wrong direction (see id.). In addition, he did not slow down or pull over in response to a truck driver sounding his air horn (see id.).
In contrast, in People v Maldonado (24 NY3d 48, 49-50 [2014]), the Court of Appeals “conclud[ed] that the evidence was legally insufficient to support defendant’s conviction for *1282depraved indifference murder because the circumstances of this high-speed vehicular police chase d[id] not fit within the narrow category of cases wherein the facts evince a defendant’s utter disregard for human life.” There, the defendant consistently drove well above the speed limit of 30 miles per hour and violated numerous traffic rules as he attempted to evade capture by the police (see id. at 50). The defendant, while running a red light, narrowly avoided hitting a pedestrian in the crosswalk, and, instead of applying the brake or slowing down, the defendant accelerated north and again swerved across the double-yellow lines into the southbound lane to avoid slower moving vehicles (see id.). The defendant did not slow down when he entered the opposing lane of traffic and, as a result, a driver going south had to swerve to the side of the road to avoid a collision (see id.). While running a third red light, the defendant struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk (see id.). The pedestrian died at the scene (see id. at 51). The defendant continued accelerating north, again swerving into the southbound lane, causing a driver headed south to swerve into the northbound lane to avoid a head-on collision with the defendant’s vehicle (see id.). The chase ended when the defendant crashed his vehicle into a parked car to avoid hitting other vehicles (see id.).
The Court of Appeals majority in Maldonado stated that the “[defendant’s reckless driving does not, on its own, establish the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference” (id. at 55). “If careless and unsafe driving were enough to meet this requirement, then we would have affirmed the defendant’s conviction of depraved indifference murder in People v Prindle (16 NY3d 768 [2011])” {id.). In Prindle, the defendant led the police on a high-speed chase along highways and residential streets, while he sped, drove erratically, crossed double-yellow lines into oncoming traffic, and wove into the passing lane (see People v Maldonado, 24 NY3d at 55, citing People v Prindle, 16 NY3d at 771-772 [Pigott, J., dissenting]). The defendant also barreled through several red lights and caused the drivers of other cars to swerve or stop to avoid a collision; after the police deactivated their lights and siren, the defendant continued to speed, swerved into oncoming traffic, turned onto local streets, ran a red light, and struck a truck (see People v Maldonado, 24 NY3d at 55, citing People v Prindle, 16 NY3d at 772-773). Thereafter, although he had room to navigate around it, the defendant hit another car and killed one of its occupants {see People v Maldonado, 24 NY3d at 55, citing People v Prindle, 16 NY3d at 773). Nevertheless, in applying the trial court’s charge as given without objection—which charge was based on the subse*1283quently overruled standard set forth in People v Register (60 NY2d 270 [1983], overruled People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288 [2006])—the Court of Appeals held that the “evidence adduced at trial does not support the jury’s conclusion that defendant evinced a depraved indifference to human life” (People v Prindle, 16 NY3d at 771).
To similar effect is People v Valencia (14 NY3d 927 [2010]). In Valencia, the Court of Appeals majority, in a memorandum, held that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of depraved indifference assault (see id.). “The trial evidence established only that defendant was extremely intoxicated and did not establish that he acted with the culpable mental state of depraved indifference” (id. at 927-928). Judge Graffeo, concurring, stated that the “[d]efendant’s blood alcohol level was about three times the legal limit when he drove at night in the wrong direction on a Long Island parkway at a high rate of speed. He continued on this course despite attempts by oncoming drivers to warn him of the danger he was creating” (id. at 928 [Graffeo, J., concurring]). “After approximately four miles, defendant crashed head-on into another vehicle and then careened into another car. Defendant’s response after being informed that he had injured other people was: T don’t know and I don’t care’ ” (id.).
Here, despite the pronouncement of Chief Judge Lippman in Heidgen, that “intoxicated driving cases that present circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life are likely to be few and far between” (People v Heidgen, 22 NY3d at 267), once again we have a case where the People sought a depraved indifference murder conviction for an intoxicated driver. But the case at bar is not an “unusually egregious case[ ]” (id.) where the evidence was legally sufficient to support the murder conviction. The majority recounts that the defendant, while drunk, high, and trying to evade the police, drove for over two miles through the streets of a residential neighborhood, traveling at speeds more than double the speed limit, ran through numerous stop signs and red traffic signals, and, seconds after nearly striking one vehicle in the vicinity of an intersection, crashed into Chad Whethers’ vehicle, splitting Whethers’ vehicle in two and instantly killing Whethers. Consistent with Maldonado, Heidgen, Prindle, and Valencia, the circumstances in this case do not fit within the narrow category of cases where the facts evince a defendant’s utter disregard for human life. The defendant did not, for example, drive on the wrong side of a road or highway and did not engage in what amounted to a high-speed game of “chicken.” The defend*1284ant’s failure to slow down in the seconds between the time he narrowly missed another vehicle and the time he struck Wheth-ers’ vehicle is not analogous to failing to slow down after striking a pedestrian or vehicle and does not reveal a depravedly indifferent mental state.
Notably, the defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. Aggravated vehicular homicide is a class B felony and carries a penalty of up to 25 years imprisonment (see Penal Law §§ 70.00 [2] [b]; 125.14). Judge Read, dissenting in Heidgen, wrote that “[i]n fashioning this crime [aggravated vehicular homicide], the legislature was, at least in part, responding to prosecutors’ pleas that ‘[r]ecent court decisions [i.e., Feingold and the decisions leading up to it] ha[d] so limited the application of the depraved indifference statutes to vehicular crimes as to make them inapplicable’ ” (People v Heidgen, 22 NY3d at 286 [Read, J., dissenting], quoting Letter from District Attorneys Assn, of the State of N.Y., June 15, 2007 at 16, Bill Jacket, L 2007, ch 345 [pertaining to SB 5517, AB 8791]). Judge Read also commented, “the legislature has addressed the proper standards for assessing the culpability of drunk drivers who cause fatalities, and the proper measure of their punishment. And it did not choose to do so by amending the second-degree murder statute” (People v Heidgen, 22 NY3d at 286).
The case at bar illustrates what Judge Smith warned of in his dissent in Heidgen: “Cases in which intoxicated drivers kill innocent people are among the most inflammatory, and thus among the most likely to generate depraved indifference murder convictions where a conviction of a lesser (but still serious) crime is all that is warranted” {id. at 281 [Smith, J., dissenting]). The defendant deserves to be held culpable for Whethers’ death. However, the defendant’s conduct behind the wheel, though reckless, selfish, and stupid, was not “so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to render the [defendant] as culpable as one whose conscious objective is to kill” (People v Suarez, 6 NY3d at 214 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Accordingly, I would modify the judgment by, inter alia, vacating the conviction of murder in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment. Since I would vacate the murder conviction, I would not dismiss, as an inclusory concurrent count, the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree. I agree with my colleagues in the majority in all other respects.