ny top court rejects 'too intoxicated' murder defense

8/13/2019 NY top court rejects 'too intoxicated' murder defense

1/37

================================================================= Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 174

The Peopl e &c. ,Respondent ,

v.Mar t i n Hei dgen, Appel l ant .( I nd. No. 1910N/ 05)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 176 The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.

Tal i yah Tayl or , Appel l ant .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 177

The Peopl e &c. , Respondent , v.Fr ankl i n McPher son,

Appel l ant .

Case No. 174: J i l l i an S. Har r i ngt on, f or appel l ant .Maur een McCor mi ck, f or r espondent .Di st r i ct At t or neys Associ at i on of t he St at e of New

Yor k, ami cus cur i ae.

Case No. 176:Er i ca Hor wi t z, f or appel l ant .Anne Gr ady, f or r espondent .Di st r i ct At t or neys Associ at i on of t he St at e of New

Yor k, ami cus cur i ae.

Case No. 177: J onat han I . Edel st ei n, f or appel l ant .Maur een McCor mi ck, f or r espondent .


2/37

Di st r i ct At t or neys Associ at i on of t he St at e of New Yor k, ami cus cur i ae.

LI PPMAN, Chi ef J udge:

Def endant s i n t hese t hr ee appeal s chal l enge t hei r

convi ct i ons of depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der . Each def endant

dr ove i n an out r ageousl y r eckl ess manner whi l e i nt oxi cat ed by

- 1 -


3/37

- 2 - No. 174, 176, 177

al cohol or dr ugs and caused t he deat h of at l east one ot her

per son. Def endant s mai nt ai n t hat t he evi dence was not l egal l y

suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t hei r convi ct i ons - speci f i cal l y, t hatt her e was i nsuf f i ci ent pr oof t hat t hey had t he r equi si t e ment al

st at e of depr aved i ndi f f er ence. Al t hough i nt oxi cat ed dr i vi ng

cases t hat pr esent ci r cumst ances evi nci ng a depr aved i ndi f f er ence

t o human l i f e ar e l i kel y t o be f ew and f ar bet ween, we f i nd t hat

t he evi dence i n each of t hese unusual l y egr egi ous cases was

l egal l y suf f i c i ent t o suppor t t he convi ct i ons.

People v Heidgen

At about 4: 30 pm on J ul y 1, 2005, def endant Mar t i n

Hei dgen met a f r i end f or dr i nks at a Manhat t an bar . When t he

f r i end l ef t about t hr ee hour s l at er , def endant , who r emai ned at

t he bar , had al r eady consumed si x beer s. Lat er t hat ni ght ,

bet ween 11: 00 pm and mi dni ght , def endant dr ove t o a par t y at a

f r i end s house i n Mer r i ck. Def endant pr oceeded t o consumesever al addi t i onal al cohol i c bever ages at t he par t y. Al t hough he

appear ed t o be i nt oxi cat ed or buzzed, def endant was not

unst eady on hi s f eet or sl ur r i ng hi s wor ds. Def endant l ef t t he

par t y af t er about an hour and a hal f , wi t hout sayi ng goodbye. I t

was not onl y wel l - known among t hei r gr oup of f r i ends t hat t her e

woul d al ways be a pl ace t o st ay or a desi gnat ed dr i ver avai l abl e

i f necessar y, but one f r i end t est i f i ed t hat she had had a

speci f i c conver sat i on wi t h def endant t o t hat ef f ect about a week

pr i or t o t he par t y.

- 2 -


4/37

- 3 - No. 174, 176, 177

J ust bef or e 2: 00 am, wi t nesses saw def endant dr i vi ng

nor t h on t he sout hbound si de of t he Meadowbr ook Par kway. One

wi t ness t est i f i ed t hat she pul l ed over when she saw def endant sheadl i ght s comi ng at her and honked her hor n t hr ee t i mes, but

t hat def endant di d not devi at e f r om t he cent er l ane or r educe hi s

speed, whi ch she est i mat ed at about 70 t o 75 mi l es per hour . A

second wi t ness t est i f i ed t hat , when he saw def endant s pi ckup

t r uck appr oachi ng, t he wi t ness dr i f t ed sl i ght l y t o t he l ef t and

t hat i t appear ed as i f [ def endant s] car was dr i f t i ng wi t h me.

Af t er def endant passed hi m, t he wi t ness l ooked i n hi s r ear vi ew

mi r r or and obser ved t hat def endant s br ake l i ght s wer e not

i l l umi nat ed. The wi t ness est i mat ed def endant s speed at bet ween

70 and 80 mi l es per hour .

A t hi r d wi t ness t est i f i ed t hat he had been dr i vi ng hi s

mot or cycl e on t he nor t hbound si de of t he Meadowbr ook Par kway,

when he saw def endant s vehi cl e on t he wr ong si de of t he r oad.He t est i f i ed t hat he r ode next t o def endant - s epar at ed by t he

guar d r ai l - and t hat t hey wer e t r avel i ng at about 70 mi l es per

hour . Despi t e t he wi t ness s l oud mot or cycl e at hi s si de,

def endant onl y l ooked st r ai ght ahead and appear ed ver y i nt ent at

dr i vi ng. The wi t ness l ost si ght of def endant s car when t he

guar d r ai l was r epl aced by a medi an of t r ees and bushes.

Af t er t r avel i ng about 2 mi l es on t he wr ong si de of t he

par kway, past mul t i pl e wr ong way s i gns and t he backs of sever al

ot her r oad si gns, def endant cr ashed head- on i nt o a l i mousi ne t hat

- 3 -


5/37


6/37

- 5 - No. 174, 176, 177

Pol i ce, t he emer gency r oom nur se obt ai ned a bl ood sampl e f r om

def endant whi ch r eveal ed a bl ood al cohol concent r at i on of . 28%. 2

Dr . Cl osson, a f or ens i c toxi col ogi s t , t es t i f i ed f or t hepr osecut i on t hat def endant s bl ood al cohol concent r at i on meant

t hat he woul d have had di f f i cul t y pr ocessi ng st i mul i i n t he

envi r onment , t hat hi s cogni t i ve abi l i t i es woul d have been i mpeded

and t hat he coul d have had bl ur r y, t unnel vi si on, whi ch woul d

have r educed hi s per i pher al vi si on. The bl ood al cohol

concent r at i on coul d have cont r i but ed t o t he di sr egar d of

subst ant i al , or even gr ave, r i sks . Cl osson t est i f i ed t hat a

di vi ded at t ent i on act i vi t y, such as dr i vi ng, woul d have

pr esent ed di f f i cul t i es because per sons under t he i nf l uence of

al cohol ar e mor e l i kel y t o f ocus on one t ask t han on per f or mi ng

sever al act i vi t i es si mul t aneousl y. I n addi t i on, def endant s

r eact i on t i me woul d have been decr eased - al t hough i t woul d have

decr eased as a mat t er of seconds, r at her t han mi nut es, and woul dnot have caused hi m t o f ai l t o per cei ve or r eact t o hi s

2 Def endant s pr et r i al mot i on t o suppr ess t he bl ood evi dence,because i t was obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of t he t i me l i mi t s i nVehi cl e and Tr af f i c Law 1194 ( 2) ( a) ( 1) and wi t hout hi s consent ,was deni ed. Dur i ng t he cour se of t he t r i al , t he cour t pr ecl udedt he bl ood evi dence as i nadmi ssi bl e and unr el i abl e due t o def ect si n t he chai n of cust ody and i nconsi st ent t est i mony f r om t he

of f i cer who had secur ed t he sampl e. However , t he cour t gr ant edt he Peopl e s subsequent appl i cat i on pur suant t o CPL 240. 40( 2) ( b) ( v) , r equi r i ng def endant t o submi t t o a buccal swab f or t hepur pose of compar i ng hi s DNA wi t h t he bl ood evi dence.Def endant s DNA sampl e was ul t i mat el y det er mi ned t o be a mat chand t he cour t t her ef or e al l owed f ur t her t est i mony concer ni ng t hebl ood evi dence.

- 5 -


7/37

- 6 - No. 174, 176, 177

sur r oundi ngs at al l . Dr . Cl osson t est i f i ed t hat t he 0. 28%

r eadi ng meant t hat def endant had appr oxi mat el y 14 dr i nks i n hi s

syst em at t he t i me of t he t est , but gave a conser vat i veest i mat e t hat def endant had consumed at l east 20 dr i nks i n al l .

Def endant was advi sed t hat he was under ar r est at about

12: 30 pm on J ul y 2, al t hough at t hat t i me he was not t ol d t hat

t wo peopl e had been ki l l ed i n t he cr ash. Def endant t ol d pol i ce

t hat he had got t en i nt o an ar gument over t he t el ephone wi t h hi s

ex- gi r l f r i end i n Ar kansas and t hat he went i nt o sel f - dest r uct

mode. He r el at ed t hat he was ver y upset and depr essed and had

consumed a f i f t h of Ol d Par r Scot ch bef or e goi ng out and

dr i vi ng ar ound. Def endant compl ai ned t hat he had f i nanci al

pr obl ems and t hat ever yt hi ng was goi ng wr ong si nce he had moved

t o New Yor k f r om Ar kansas. He al so t ol d t he of f i cer s t hat hi s

gr andmot her had r ecent l y passed away. I n r esponse t o mul t i pl e

pol i ce i nqui r i es on t he subj ect , def endant deni ed t hat he hadbeen t r yi ng t o hur t hi msel f .

A l et t er t hat def endant wr ot e t o one of hi s f r i ends

f r om pr i son expl ai ned t hat t he st at ement s he had made t o t he

pol i ce wer e f al se. He not ed t hat he had not spoken wi t h hi s ex-

gi r l f r i end at al l t hat ni ght and t hat he di d not have any

f i nanci al pr obl ems. I n addi t i on, he poi nt ed out t hat por t i ons of

hi s s t at ement wer e l i nes f r om t he movi es Ocean s El even and Pul p

Fi ct i on. He f ur t her st at ed t hat t he empt y bot t l e of Ol d Par r

Scot ch i n hi s apar t ment had been empt y f or mont hs pr i or t o t he

- 6 -


8/37

- 7 - No. 174, 176, 177

acci dent . Def endant i ndi cat ed t hat he const r uct ed t hi s st or y i n

or der t o pr ot ect t he host s of t he par t y and t o por t r ay hi msel f as

a per son wor t hy of l eni ency. The def ense r et ai ned an engi neer , St even Schnei der , who

was qual i f i ed as an acci dent r econst r uct i on exper t . 3 Schnei der

cal cul at ed t hat t he l i mousi ne had been t r avel i ng at 49 mi l es per

hour on i mpact . He f ur t her est i mat ed t hat def endant s vehi cl e

had been t r avel i ng somewher e bet ween 27 and 38 mi l es per hour .

The Peopl e di d not cal l an exper t and i nst ead r el i ed upon t he

t est i mony of l ay eyewi t nesses r egar di ng def endant s speed.

The j ur y was i nst r uct ed t hat , when det er mi ni ng whet her

def endant had act ed wi t h depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e, i t

shoul d consi der whet her he was t oo i nt oxi cat ed t o be abl e t o f or m

t he r equi si t e ment al st at e. Def endant was convi ct ed af t er t r i al

of t wo count s of mur der i n t he second degr ee, t hr ee count s of

assaul t i n t he f i r st degr ee and t wo count s of oper at i ng a vehi cl ewhi l e under t he i nf l uence of al cohol . The cour t deni ed

def endant s post - t r i al mot i on t o set asi de t he ver di ct , r ej ect i ng

def endant s ar gument s asser t i ng j ur or mi sconduct and t hat t he

Peopl e f ai l ed t o pr ove beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat he had t he

3 Def endant sought t o have t he St at e Pol i ce of f i cer who

conduct ed t he r econst r uct i on i n t hi s case t est i f y as an exper t ,but t he Peopl e opposed t he of f i cer s qual i f i cat i ons concer ni ngt he t ype of acci dent t hat occur r ed her e - an angul ar head- oncol l i si on. The cour t r ef used t o qual i f y t he of f i cer as an exper twi t ness, not i ng t hat t he of f i cer had never been qual i f i ed as anexper t i n any cour t and di d not consi der hi msel f an exper t i n t het ype of cal cul at i ons necessar y i n t hi s case.

- 7 -


9/37

- 8 - No. 174, 176, 177

st at e of mi nd of depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e.

The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med, f i ndi ng t he evi dence

l egal l y suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he convi ct i on ( 87 AD3d 1016 [ 2dDept 2011] ) . The Cour t al so det er mi ned t hat t he al l egat i ons of

j ur or mi sconduct i n def endant s CPL 330. 30 mot i on wer e pr oper l y

r ej ect ed. One J ust i ce di ssent ed i n par t and woul d have modi f i ed

t o r educe t he convi ct i ons of mur der i n t he second degr ee t o

mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee and t he convi ct i ons of assaul t

i n t he f i r st degr ee t o assaul t i n t he second degr ee. The di ssent

woul d have f ound t he evi dence l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a

f i ndi ng of depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e, si nce t he Peopl e

f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat def endant was awar e of , and i ndi f f er ent

t o, t he gr ave r i sks pr esent ed by hi s conduct . The di ssent woul d

have f ound def endant t oo i nebr i at ed t o f or m such a mens r ea ( 87

AD3d at 1034) . The di ssent i ng J ust i ce gr ant ed def endant l eave t o

appeal t o t hi s Cour t and we now af f i r m.People v Taylor

On Oct ober 18, 2006, def endant Tal i yah Tayl or spent

most of t he eveni ng at t empt i ng t o r ecor d a song she had wr i t t en

i n honor of her l at e f at her , who had di ed when she was a chi l d.

Unabl e t o recal l t he l ast ver se of t he song, she t ook Ecst asy at

about 6: 30 pm i n or der t o hel p her f ocus and t o f eel cl oser t o

her f at her . She al so dr ank one beer and smoked mar i j uana. A f ew

hour s l at er , def endant l ef t t he r ecor di ng sessi on, t aki ng her

young nephew wi t h her t o get t he evi l of f of [ hi m] . She

- 8 -


10/37

- 9 - No. 174, 176, 177

br ought hi m t o her mot her s house, wher e she r emoved hi s

cl ot hi ng. Tayl or al so r emoved her own cl ot hi ng t o show t hat she

had not hi ng t o hi de and shoul d be accept ed as she was. Def endantr an out si de, st i l l naked, at t empt i ng t o get away f r om

ever yt hi ng, al l t he pr obl ems, al l t he hat e, al l t he gr eed. Over

her gi r l f r i end s vi gor ous obj ect i ons, Tayl or t hen t ook t he

f r i end s car , l at er expl ai ni ng t hat she want ed t o dr i ve as f ast

as t he car woul d t ake her .

At about 10: 45 pm, def endant dr ove on For est Avenue i n

St at en I sl and ( a l ocal r oad wi t h a post ed speed l i mi t of 35 mi l es

per hour ) at speeds bet ween 80 and 90 mi l es per hour , wi t hout

headl i ght s, on t he wr ong si de of t he r oad, and st r uck a

pedest r i an, Lar r y Si mon, who was cr ossi ng t he st r eet . Def endant ,

who was wear i ng her seat bel t , di d not sl ow down, sound her hor n

or make any at t empt t o swer ve. Si mon was ki l l ed i nst ant l y,

sust ai ni ng i nj ur i es t hat wer e mor e consi st ent wi t h havi ng beenhi t by a subway t r ai n t han by a car . Wi t hout sl owi ng, def endant

cont i nued dr i vi ng i n t he l ane f or oncomi ng t r af f i c, r an a r ed

l i ght and st r uck a vehi cl e t hat was st opped at t hat l i ght ,

i nj ur i ng t he vehi cl e s occupant s. Def endant s car t hen f l i pped

over , bef or e comi ng t o r est i n a par ki ng l ot .

Byst ander s hel ped def endant f r om t he vehi cl e and she

began j umpi ng up and down, chant i ng money, power , r espect .

When t he pol i ce ar r i ved at t he scene, def endant t r i ed t o dr i ve

away i n an unat t ended squad car , but was s t opped and ar r est ed.

- 9 -


11/37

- 10 - No. 174, 176, 177

When asked f or her pedi gr ee i nf or mat i on, def endant gave her

gi r l f r i end s name i nst ead of her own on t hr ee separ at e occasi ons.

The emer gency medi cal per sonnel gener al l y char act er i zed def endantas al er t and coher ent , t hough under t he i nf l uence of dr ugs or

al cohol . A bl ood t est per f or med af t er mi dni ght showed t he

pr esence of met hyl enedi oxyamphet ami ne ( MDA) 4 i n a concent r at i on

t hat i ndi cat ed def endant was st i l l act i vel y under t he i nf l uence

of t he dr ug.

The f or ensi c t oxi col ogi st t est i f i ed t hat MDA i s a

cent r al ner vous syst em st i mul ant t hat , at hi gher dosages, can

have hal l uci nogeni c ef f ect s. He obser ved t hat i ndi vi dual s under

t he i nf l uence of MDA of t en exhi bi t enhanced r i sk- t aki ng behavi or

and t hat t hey woul d have di f f i cul t y wi t h a mul t i - t ask act i vi t y

such as oper at i ng a mot or vehi cl e - t hey mi ght ei t her swi t ch

t asks t oo qui ckl y or f ocus on one t ask t o t he excl usi on of

ot her s. Al t hough cannabi noi ds wer e det ect ed i n an i ni t i alscr eeni ng t est , t hei r pr esence was not conf i r med by any f ol l owup

t est i ng. However , t he t oxi col ogi st t est i f i ed t hat cannabi noi ds

ar e al so hal l uci nogeni c compounds and coul d have an addi t i ve or

syner gi st i c ef f ect i f t aken wi t h MDA.

One of t he pol i ce of f i cer s t est i f i ed t hat def endant

4 MDA i s i n t he same chemi cal cl ass as, and i s a met abol i t eof , met hyl enedi oxymet hamphet ami ne ( MDMA or Ecst asy) . Thef or ensi c t oxi col ogi st t est i f i ed t hat , as bet ween MDA and MDMA,t her e woul d be no si gni f i cant di f f er ence i n t he ef f ect s on t heuser .

- 10 -


12/37

- 11 - No. 174, 176, 177

t ol d hi m t hat , as she was dr i vi ng, t hi ngs wer e comi ng at her

f ast and she made t he si de t o si de mot i on al so l i ke she i s

avoi di ng t hi ngs. When asked i f she r emember ed hi t t i ng t hepedest r i an, she t ol d t he of f i cer t hat she saw hi m and t hen he

was gone. She al so r el at ed t hat i t was l i ke she was i n a

movi e, but she knew she wasn t i n a movi e.

The cour t deni ed def ense counsel s mot i on t o di smi ss

t he depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der char ge, r ej ect i ng t he ar gument

t hat t he Peopl e di d not est abl i sh t he necessary st at e of mi nd.

The j ur y was i nst r uct ed t hat i t coul d consi der whet her def endant

was t oo i nt oxi cat ed t o be capabl e of f or mi ng t he ment al st at e of

depr aved i ndi f f er ence. Def endant was convi ct ed of mur der i n t he

second degr ee, r eckl ess endanger ment i n t he f i r st degr ee and

oper at i ng a mot or vehi cl e whi l e under t he i nf l uence.

The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med, f i ndi ng l egal l y

suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t he convi ct i on ( 98 AD3d 593 [ 2dDept 2012] ) . A J udge of t hi s Cour t gr ant ed def endant l eave t o

appeal and we now af f i r m.

People v McPherson

At about 3: 15 am on Oct ober 19, 2007, def endant

Frankl i n McPher son l ef t a ni ght cl ub wi t h hi s cousi n, hi s

gi r l f r i end and one of her f r i ends, and began ar gui ng wi t h hi s

gi r l f r i end i n t he par ki ng l ot . He was appar ent l y upset t hat he

had l ost somet hi ng and was seen sear chi ng t hr ough t he t r unk of

hi s car . Wi t nesses t hen hear d sever al gunshot s and def endant

- 11 -


13/37

- 12 - No. 174, 176, 177

dr ove away wi t h hi s cousi n i n t he car . Pol i ce l at er f ound f i ve 9

mi l l i met er shel l casi ngs i n t he par ki ng l ot .

At 3: 30 am, def endant s car was seen dr i vi ng west i nt he east bound l anes of t he Sout her n St at e Par kway at speeds of

about 70 t o 75 mi l es per hour . He t r avel ed about f i ve mi l es i n

t he wr ong di r ect i on, passi ng ei ght wr ong way si gns and t he

backs of 21 l ar ge si gns t hat coul d onl y be r ead by east bound

dr i ver s. A const r uct i on wor ker i n t he r i ght - hand, east bound

l ane, t est i f i ed t hat when he saw def endant dr i vi ng t owar d hi m, he

bl ew hi s Mack t r uck s ai r hor n f or t hr ee or f our seconds, but

def endant j ust kept goi ng. Ot her wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat car s

wer e veer i ng out of def endant s way but t hat def endant made no

at t empt t o br ake or t o avoi d ot her vehi cl es.

Near exi t 13, def endant cr ashed head- on i nt o a J eep

wi t hout sl owi ng down, ki l l i ng t he J eep s dr i ver , Lesl i e Bur gess,

i nst ant l y. Def endant was pl aced under ar r est and hi s bl oodal cohol cont ent was measur ed at 0. 19%. I n a subsequent i nvent or y

sear ch of hi s vehi cl e, pol i ce f ound 9 mi l l i met er ammuni t i on i n

t he t r unk, as wel l as an unl oaded 9 mi l l i met er handgun i n t he

car . The gun was l at er det er mi ned t o be t he same one t hat had

f i r ed t he shot s i n t he par ki ng l ot ear l i er t hat eveni ng. A smal l

pl ast i c bag cont ai ni ng cocai ne was al so f ound i nsi de def endant s

vehi cl e.

Def ense counsel ar gued t o t he j ur y dur i ng openi ng and

cl osi ng st at ement s t hat t hey had t o det er mi ne whet her McPher son

- 12 -


14/37

- 13 - No. 174, 176, 177

had been capabl e of per cei vi ng t he r i sk pr esent ed by hi s behavi or

and pur posel y i gnor ed t hat r i sk. I n addi t i on, when di scussi ng

how t o f or mul at e an appr opr i at e j ur y char ge on depr avedi ndi f f er ence, t he t r i al cour t speci f i cal l y r ai sed Peopl e v

Fei ngol d ( 7 NY3d 288 [ 2006] ) and asked t he par t i es whet her t he

hol di ng of t hat case was appl i cabl e i f def endant was obl i vi ous t o

hi s sur r oundi ngs by vi r t ue of hi s vol unt ar y i nt oxi cat i on.

Def ense counsel , however , f ai l ed t o move t o di smi ss t he depr aved

i ndi f f er ence mur der char ge on t hat basi s. The j ur y was

i nst r uct ed t hat i t must consi der whet her def endant was

i nt oxi cat ed t o such a degr ee t hat he was i ncapabl e of f or mi ng t he

ment al st at e of depr aved i ndi f f er ence.

Def endant was convi ct ed of mur der i n t he second degr ee,

vehi cul ar mansl aught er i n t he f i r st degr ee, aggr avat ed dr i vi ng

whi l e i nt oxi cat ed, oper at i ng a mot or vehi cl e whi l e under t he

i nf l uence of al cohol , cr i mi nal possessi on of a weapon i n t hesecond degr ee and cr i mi nal possessi on of a cont r ol l ed subst ance

i n t he sevent h degr ee. The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med, f i ndi ng

def endant s ar gument t hat t he evi dence was l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent

t o suppor t hi s convi ct i on unpr eser ved f or r evi ew and, i n any

event , wi t hout mer i t ( 89 AD3d 752 [ 2d Dept 2011] ) . The Cour t

al so r ej ect ed t he ar gument t hat def endant r ecei ved i nef f ect i ve

assi st ance of counsel .

One J ust i ce di ssent ed and woul d have modi f i ed, i n t he

i nt er est of j ust i ce, by r educi ng t he second degr ee mur der

- 13 -


15/37

- 14 - No. 174, 176, 177

convi ct i on t o mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee. The di ssent

woul d have f ound t hat t he Peopl e f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat def endant

was awar e t hat he was dr i vi ng t he wr ong way on t he hi ghway anddi sr egar ded t he gr ave r i sk of deat h t o ot her s. The di ssent i ng

J ust i ce gr ant ed def endant l eave t o appeal t o t hi s Cour t and we

now af f i r m.

Depraved Indifference

As we hel d i n Peopl e v Fei ngol d ( 7 NY3d 288 [ 2006] ) ,

depr aved i ndi f f er ence i s a cul pabl e ment al st at e. That ment al

st at e i s best under st ood as an ut t er di sr egar d f or t he val ue of

human l i f e - a wi l l i ngness t o act not because one i nt ends har m,

but because one si mpl y doesn t car e whet her gr i evous har m r esul t s

or not ( Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d at 296 [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) . Ci r cumst ant i al evi dence can be used t o

est abl i sh t he necessar y mens r ea ( see Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d at 296) .

The def endant i n Fei ngol d had been convi ct ed of r eckl ess endanger ment i n t he f i r st degr ee - r eckl essl y engagi ng

i n conduct t hat cr eat es a gr ave r i sk of deat h t o ot her s, under

ci r cumst ances evi nci ng a depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e.

Fei ngol d had at t empt ed sui ci de by bl owi ng out t he pi l ot l i ght of

hi s st ove and t ur ni ng on t he gas. However , a spar k f r om t he

r ef r i ger at or caused an expl osi on, r esul t i ng i n st r uct ur al damage

t o hi s apar t ment bui l di ng. Al t hough we r ecogni zed t hat , vi ewed

i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he Peopl e, t he evi dence coul d

have suppor t ed t he concl usi on t hat def endant had t he necessar y

- 14 -


16/37

- 15 - No. 174, 176, 177

mens r ea, t he t r i al j udge s expr ess f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant s

st at e of mi nd di d not r ef l ect depr aved i ndi f f er ence f or ecl osed

such a det er mi nat i on i n t hat case ( see Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d at 295) .Mor e r ecent l y, i n Peopl e v Val enci a ( 14 NY3d 927

[ 2010] ) , we addr essed a f act pat t er n si mi l ar t o t he cases at

i ssue. Af t er spendi ng t he eveni ng dr i nki ng at a f r i end s house,

t he def endant dr ove i n t he wr ong di r ect i on on a Long I sl and

par kway at a hi gh r at e of speed, f or about f our mi l es. He

cr ashed i nt o t wo oncomi ng vehi cl es, causi ng ser i ous physi cal

i nj ur y t o t he dr i ver s. Val enci a s bl ood al cohol concent r at i on

was measur ed at 0. 21%. We hel d t hat t her e was l egal l y

i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t he convi ct i on f or f i r st degr ee

( depr aved i ndi f f er ence) assaul t , not i ng t hat [ t ] he t r i al

evi dence est abl i shed onl y t hat def endant was ext r emel y

i nt oxi cat ed and di d not est abl i sh t hat he act ed wi t h t he cul pabl e

ment al st at e of depr aved i ndi f f er ence ( 14 NY3d at 927- 928) .Val enci a i s, however , di st i ngui shabl e f r om t he pr esent

cases. Ther e, t he t r i al j udge, as the f act - f i nder , det er mi ned

t hat t he def endant had been obl i vi ous t o t he r i sks caused by

hi s dr unk dr i vi ng at t he t i me of t he of f ense, but never t hel ess

convi ct ed hi m of depr aved i ndi f f er ence assaul t based si mpl y on

hi s ear l i er act s of dr i nki ng t o t he poi nt of ext r eme

i nt oxi cat i on, despi t e def endant s awar eness t hat he woul d be

dr i vi ng i n t hat condi t i on l at er t hat eveni ng ( see 14 NY3d at 928

[ Gr af f eo, J . , concur r i ng] ) . To t he cont r ar y, i n each of t he

- 15 -


17/37

- 16 - No. 174, 176, 177

i nst ant appeal s, t he j ur y was asked t o deci de whet her t he

def endant was i ncapabl e of f or mi ng t he r equi si t e ment al st at e by

r eason of hi s or her i nt oxi cat i on and each j ur y r ej ect ed t hear gument t hat def endant s i mpai r ment r ose t o t hat l evel .

Fur t her , none of t he i nst ant appeal s pr esent s t he quest i on of

whet her t he mens r ea of depr aved i ndi f f er ence must be

cont empor aneous wi t h t he act us r eus of t he of f ense.

I n Peopl e v Pr i ndl e ( 16 NY3d 768 [ 2011] ) , t he def endant

l ed t he pol i ce on a hi gh speed chase af t er at t empt i ng t o st eal

t wo snow pl ows and ul t i mat el y cr ashed i nt o anot her vehi cl e,

ki l l i ng one of i t s occupant s. We r educed t he def endant s

depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der convi ct i on t o mansl aught er i n t he

second degr ee. Obser vi ng t hat t he j ur y had been i nst r uct ed,

wi t hout obj ect i on, accor di ng t o t he pr e- Fei ngol d st andar d of

Peopl e v Regi st er ( 60 NY2d 270 [ 1983] ) , we f ound t hat t he

evi dence was l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he det er mi nat i ont hat def endant had demonst r at ed a depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human

l i f e ( see Pr i ndl e, 16 NY3d at 771) . We compar ed Pr i ndl e s case

t o Peopl e v Gomez ( 65 NY2d 9, 12 [ 1985] ) , wher e, af t er st r i ki ng

t wo car s, t he def endant dr ove on t he si dewal k, st r uck and ki l l ed

one chi l d, r ef used hi s passenger s pl eas t o appl y t he br akes,

cont i nued t o accel er at e and st r uck anot her chi l d on t he si dewal k.

By cont r ast , Pr i ndl e, al t hough pl ai nl y dr i vi ng i n an unsaf e

manner , had been act i vel y at t empt i ng t o avoi d hi t t i ng ot her

vehi cl es.

- 16 -


18/37

- 17 - No. 174, 176, 177

These cases demonst r at e t hat cases i nvol vi ng a depr aved

i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e ar e hi ghl y f act - speci f i c and dependent

upon t he i ndi vi dual def endant s par t i cul ar ment al st at e - af act or t hat may be ext r emel y di f f i cul t t o est abl i sh. I ndeed,

i nt oxi cat ed dr i vi ng cases i n gener al , al t hough cl ear l y exampl es

of danger ous behavi or , ar e not t hought of as qui nt essent i al

cases of depr aved i ndi f f er ence - such as, f i r i ng i nt o a cr owd;

dr i vi ng an aut omobi l e al ong a cr owded si dewal k at hi gh speed;

openi ng t he l i on s cage at t he zoo; pl aci ng a t i me bomb i n a

publ i c pl ace; poi soni ng a wel l f r om whi ch peopl e ar e accust omed

t o dr aw wat er ; openi ng a dr awbr i dge as a t r ai n i s about t o pass

over i t and dr oppi ng st ones f r om an over pass ont o a busy hi ghway

( Peopl e v Suar ez, 6 NY3d 202, 214 [ 2005] [ ci t at i ons omi t t ed] ) .

Recogni zi ng t hat i t i s i mpor t ant t hat l aw enf or cement and

pr osecut or s have t he t ool s necessar y t o pr oper l y char ge and

convi ct [ t hose] who have commi t t ed a DWI r esul t i ng i n per sonali nj ur y or deat h ( Bi l l J acket , L 2007, ch 345, Senat e

I nt r oducer s Memor andum i n Suppor t ) , t he l egi sl at ur e has enact ed

t he aggr avat ed vehi cul ar homi ci de and assaul t st at ut es ( Penal Law

125. 14, 120. 04- a) , whi ch pr ovi de f or enhanced puni shment of

t hose i ndi vi dual s who cause deat h or ser i ous physi cal i nj ur y

whi l e oper at i ng a mot or vehi cl e whi l e i nt oxi cat ed, when, f or

exampl e, t he i ndi vi dual has a bl ood al cohol cont ent of at l east

0. 18. These st at ut es, however , do not f or ecl ose t he possi bi l i t y

of pr osecut i on f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der wher e egr egi ous

- 17 -


19/37

- 18 - No. 174, 176, 177

ci r cumst ances war r ant t hat char ge, as t hey do her e.

A ver di ct i s l egal l y suf f i ci ent when, vi ewi ng t he

f act s i n a l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he Peopl e, t her e i s a val i dl i ne of r easoni ng and per mi ssi bl e i nf er ences f r om whi ch a

r at i onal j ur y coul d have f ound t he el ement s of t he cr i me pr oved

beyond a r easonabl e doubt ( Peopl e v Dani el son, 9 NY3d 342, 349

[ 2007] [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed] ) . The

r evi ewi ng cour t must mar shal compet ent f act s most f avor abl e t o

t he Peopl e and det er mi ne whet her , as a mat t er of l aw, a j ur y

coul d l ogi cal l y concl ude t hat t he Peopl e sust ai ned i t s bur den of

pr oof ( Dani el son, 9 NY3d at 349) .

When vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he Peopl e,

t her e was l egal l y suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t Hei dgen s

convi ct i ons f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der . The j ur y coul d

have det er mi ned t hat def endant was unhappy and sel f - dest r uct i ve.

Def endant s f r i ends who obser ved hi m at t he par t y t hought t hat hewas i nt oxi cat ed but not so i nt oxi cat ed t hat he was i ncoher ent ,

unst eady on hi s f eet or s l ur r i ng hi s speech. Hei dgen dr ove t he

wr ong way on t he hi ghway f or over t wo mi l es wi t hout r eact i ng t o

ot her dr i ver s comi ng at hi m, car hor ns, or wr ong way si gnage.

Per haps most si gni f i cant l y, mor e t han one wi t ness t est i f i ed t hat

def endant appear ed t o f ol l ow, or t r ack, t he headl i ght s of

oncomi ng vehi cl es. I n addi t i on, t he t oxi col ogi st t est i f i ed t hat

def endant s bl ood al cohol l evel woul d have caused del ayed

r eact i on t i me, but t hat i t woul d not have r ender ed hi m i ncapabl e

- 18 -


20/37

- 19 - No. 174, 176, 177

of r eact i ng at al l . Based on t hi s evi dence, t he j ur y coul d have

f ound t hat , despi t e def endant s i nt oxi cat i on, he per cei ved hi s

sur r oundi ngs. The j ur y coul d have r easonabl y concl uded t hatdef endant dr ove, knowi ng t hat he was on t he wr ong si de of t he

r oad and wi t h an appr eci at i on of t he gr ave r i sks i nvol ved i n t hat

behavi or . 5 One who engages i n what amount s t o a hi gh speed game

of chi cken, wi t h compl et e di sr egar d f or t he val ue of t he l i ves

t hat ar e t her eby endanger ed, i s undoubt edl y an i ndi vi dual whose

cul pabi l i t y i s t he equi val ent of an i nt ent i onal mur der er .

The evi dence i s l i kewi se l egal l y suf f i ci ent t o suppor t

Tayl or s convi ct i on f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der . Tayl or

buckl ed her seat bel t and set out t o dr i ve as f ast as she coul d

go. She pr oceeded at speeds i n excess of 80 mi l es per hour on a

l ocal r oad, wi t hout l i ght s, at t i mes on t he wr ong si de of t he

st r eet . Her s t at ement s t o pol i ce r eveal ed t hat she had per cei ved

at l east some of t he obst acl es i n her pat h, not abl y t hepedest r i an vi ct i m pr i or t o st r i ki ng hi m. Tayl or s behavi or was

obvi ousl y f r enzi ed, 6 but i t i s al so cl ear t hat she was awar e of

5 Si mi l ar l y, t he evi dence i s l egal l y suf f i c i ent t o suppor tdef endant s convi ct i ons f or assaul t i n t he f i r st degr ee ( seePenal Law 120. 10 [ 3] [ A per son i s gui l t y of assaul t i n t hef i r st degr ee when . . . [ u] nder ci r cumst ances evi nci ng a depr aved

i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e, he r eckl essl y engages i n conductwhi ch cr eat es a gr ave r i sk of deat h t o anot her per son, andt her eby causes ser i ous physi cal i nj ur y t o anot her per son] ) .

6 Def endant had i ni t i al l y gi ven not i ce of her i nt ent i on t opr esent a psychi at r i c def ense, but t hat def ense was abandoneddur i ng t r i al .

- 19 -


21/37

- 20 - No. 174, 176, 177

her s ur r oundi ngs. Fr om t he above evi dence, t he j ur y coul d have

concl uded t hat def endant r eckl ess l y engaged i n conduct t hat

cr eat ed a gr ave r i sk of deat h t o ot her s, wi t h an ut t er di sr egar df or whet her any har m came t o t hose she i mper i l ed.

For t he same r easons, t he evi dence was l egal l y

suf f i c i ent t o est abl i sh t hat Tayl or was gui l t y of r eckl ess

endanger ment i n t he f i r st degr ee. As def endant her sel f obser ves,

t her e was no change i n her ment al st at e bet ween t he t i me she

st r uck t he pedest r i an and when she hi t t he ot her vehi cl e.

Rat her , af t er col l i di ng wi t h pedest r i an Si mon, she pr oceeded at

f ul l speed.

I n McPher son, t he depr aved i ndi f f er ence ar gument ar i ses

i n t he cont ext of an i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m.

Def endant s t r i al t ook pl ace i n 2008, appr oxi mat el y t wo year s

af t er t hi s Cour t s deci si on i n Fei ngol d whi ch, as not ed above,

concl usi vel y est abl i shed depr aved i ndi f f er ence as a cul pabl ement al st at e. I ndeed, when di scussi ng how t o f or mul at e t he j ur y

char ge, t he t r i al cour t speci f i cal l y r ai sed Fei ngol d t o t he

par t i es - i n par t i cul ar , whet her t he hol di ng appl i ed i f t he

def endant had been obl i vi ous t o hi s sur r oundi ngs because he was

vol unt ar i l y i nt oxi cat ed. Under t hese ci r cumst ances, even i f a

r easonabl e def ense l awyer mi ght have quest i oned whet her a mot i on

t o di smi ss on t hi s basi s was a cl ear wi nner , he or she coul d

not have r easonabl y det er mi ned t hat t he ar gument was so weak as

t o be not wor t h r ai si ng ( Peopl e v Tur ner , 5 NY3d 476, 483

- 20 -


22/37

- 21 - No. 174, 176, 177

[ 2005] ) . Def ense counsel shoul d have moved t o di smi ss t he char ge

of depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der .

Nonet hel ess, def endant f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat her ecei ved i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel . I n eval uat i ng an

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of counsel cl ai m, we have l ooked t o t he

f ai r ness of t he pr oceedi ngs as a whol e, or whet her def endant

r ecei ved meani ngf ul r epr esent at i on. We have r ecogni zed t hat a

def endant s showi ng of pr ej udi ce [ i s] a si gni f i cant but not

i ndi spensabl e el ement i n det er mi ni ng whet her t he st andar d of

meani ngf ul r epr esent at i on was achi eved ( Peopl e v St ul t z, 2 NY3d

277, 284 [ 2004] ) .

Her e, a mot i on t o di smi ss woul d not have been

success f ul . The Peopl e est abl i shed t hat def endant became enr aged

af t er l osi ng somet hi ng and f i r ed of f sever al gunshot s. He t hen

dr ove at excess i ve speed, i n t he wr ong di r ect i on on t he par kway

f or about f i ve mi l es. Dur i ng t hat t i me - mor e t han f our mi nut es- - def endant di d not appear t o appl y hi s br akes and sever al

oncomi ng car s swer ved t o avoi d hi m. He al so passed numer ous

si gns t hat shoul d have al er t ed hi m t hat he was t r avel i ng i n t he

wr ong di r ect i on. I n addi t i on, he di d not sl ow down or pul l over

i n r esponse t o a t r uck dr i ver soundi ng hi s ai r hor n. Ther e was,

under t he ci r cumst ances, ampl e evi dence suppor t i ng t he concl usi on

t hat def endant was awar e t hat he was dr i vi ng on t he wr ong si de of

t he r oad and cont i nued t o do so wi t h compl et e di sr egar d f or t he

l i ves of ot her s. Ther ef or e, al t hough t he mot i on t o di smi ss

- 21 -


23/37

- 22 - No. 174, 176, 177

shoul d have been made, we ar e per suaded t hat def endant was not

pr ej udi ced and ot her wi se r ecei ved meani ngf ul r epr esent at i on.

Si nce t her e was no r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat t he resul t woul dhave been di f f er ent , def endant s cl ai m al so f ai l s under t he

f eder al st andar d ( see St r i ckl and v Washi ngt on, 466 US 688, 694

[ 1984] ) .

Per haps t he most di f f i cul t aspect of al l of t hese cases

i s whet her t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t hat t he def endant s wer e

awar e of and appr eci at ed t he r i sks caused by t hei r behavi or -

speci f i cal l y, as t o Hei dgen and McPher son, t hat t hey knew t hey

wer e dr i vi ng on t he wr ong si de of t he par kway and pr oceeded

r egar dl ess. However , as not ed above, each j ur y r ej ect ed t he

concl usi on t hat t he def endant was t oo i nt oxi cat ed t o f or m t he

r equi si t e i nt ent . Despi t e def endant s seemi ngl y i nexpl i cabl e

behavi or , t he Peopl e si mpl y ar e not r equi r ed t o pr ovi de a mot i ve

f or t hei r conduct . Rat her , depr aved i ndi f f er ence can be pr ovedci r cumst ant i al l y. Her e, i n each case, a r at i onal j ur y coul d have

f ound t hat t he def endant , embol dened by al cohol or dr ugs,

appr eci at ed t hat he or she was engagi ng i n conduct t hat pr esent ed

a gr ave r i sk of deat h and t ot al l y di sr egar ded t hat r i sk, wi t h

cat ast r ophi c consequences.

One of Hei dgen s addi t i onal ar gument s mer i t s f ur t her

di scussi on. He asser t s t hat hi s bl ood was i l l egal l y dr awn

wi t hout hi s consent or a war r ant , and shoul d have been

suppr essed. The suppr ess i on cour t f ound t hat i t was unnecessar y

- 22 -


24/37

- 23 - No. 174, 176, 177

t o obt ai n def endant s consent bef or e dr awi ng hi s bl ood because i t

woul d have been i mpossi bl e t o do so, gi ven hi s compl et e

di sor i ent at i on. Thi s f i ndi ng was undi st ur bed by t he Appel l at eDi vi si on and t her e i s suppor t i n t he r ecor d f or t he det er mi nat i on

( see Peopl e v Har per , 7 NY3d 882, 883 [ 2006] ) . 7

Def endant al so mai nt ai ns t hat t he pol i ce shoul d have

obt ai ned a war r ant bef or e dr awi ng hi s bl ood and t hat , under

r ecent Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t pr ecedent , t hey wer e r equi r ed

t o do so ( see Mi ss our i v McNeel y, 569 US , 133 S Ct 1552

[ 2013] ) . I n McNeel y, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat t he nat ur al

di ssi pat i on of al cohol f r om t he bl ood does not const i t ut e a per

se exi gency j ust i f yi ng an except i on t o t he war r ant r equi r ement of

t he Four t h Amendment - r at her , whet her a war r ant l ess bl ood t est

was r easonabl e i s dependent on t he ci r cumst ances of t he

par t i cul ar case ( see 133 S Ct at 1563) .

We not e t hat , unl i ke t he def endant i n McNeel y, Hei dgendi d not r ef use t o consent t o t he bl ood t est . Hi s bl ood was t aken

pur suant t o a st at ut or y pr esumpt i on of consent t o chemi cal

7 Rel at edl y, def endant ar gues t hat hi s bl ood was dr awn i nvi ol at i on of t he r equi r ement s i n Vehi cl e and Tr af f i c Law 1194( 2) ( a) ( 1) , aut hor i zi ng t he pol i ce t o obt ai n a bl ood sampl e wi t hi nt wo hour s of a per son s ar r est f or dr i vi ng under t he i nf l uence of al cohol . Thi s ar gument i s dependent on def endant s asser t i on

t hat he was not f or mal l y ar r est ed unt i l about t en hour s af t er t heacci dent . However , t he suppr ess i on cour t f ound t hat def endantwas ar r est ed at t he scene pur suant t o pr obabl e cause and t heAppel l at e Di vi si on di d not upset t hi s f i ndi ng. Ther e i s recor dsuppor t f or t hat det er mi nat i on, r ender i ng i t beyond our f ur t herr evi ew. The bl ood t est was t her ef or e t i mel y under t he Vehi cl eand Tr af f i c Law.

- 23 -


25/37

- 24 - No. 174, 176, 177

t est i ng t hat appl i es t o al l per sons who oper at e vehi cl es wi t hi n

t he st at e ( see Vehi cl e and Tr af f i c Law 1194 [ 2] [ a] ) . Al t hough

def endant r ai sed sever al ar gument s at t he suppr ess i on hear i ngconcer ni ng t he val i di t y of hi s bl ood t est - whet her t he bl ood

had been dr awn by a l i censed pr of ess i onal nur se, whet her i t was

dr awn wi t hi n t he st at ut or y t i me l i mi t s and whet her he was capabl e

of consent - t he cur r ent ar gument was not one of t hem. I n t he

mi dst of an ar gument t hat Hei dgen shoul d have been asked f or hi s

consent , counsel at one poi nt st at ed t hat , t hey shoul d have

cal l ed t he di s t r i c t at t or ney s of f i ce, or cer t ai nl y secur ed a

war r ant , and t hey di dn t . Thi s i n no way amount s t o an ar gument

t hat t he dr awi ng of def endant s bl ood whi l e he was i ncapaci t at ed,

under a st at ut or y pr esumpt i on of consent , vi ol at ed hi s Four t h

Amendment r i ght s. Under t he ci r cumst ances, we f i nd t he cur r ent

ar gument unpr eser ved f or our r evi ew.

We have consi der ed def endant s r emai ni ng ar gument s andf i nd t hem t o be wi t hout mer i t .

Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on i n

each case shoul d be af f i r med.

- 24 -


26/37

Peopl e v Mar t i n Hei dgenPeopl e v Tal i yah Tayl orPeopl e v Fr ankl i n McPher son

Nos. 174, 176, 177

SMI TH, J . ( di ssent i ng) :

We have sai d sever al t i mes t hat depr aved

i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e i s a ver y unusual st at e of mi nd ( seePeopl e v Lewi e, 17 NY3d 348, 359 [ 2011] ; Peopl e v Suar ez, 6 NY3d

202, 212 [ 2005] ; Peopl e v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 270 [ 2004] ) . But

exper i ence shows t hat j ur i es, especi al l y i n cases wi t h

i nf l ammat or y f act s, wi l l of t en f i nd depr aved i ndi f f er ence wher e

t he evi dence does not suppor t i t , and as a r esul t we have

r ever sed many convi ct i ons i n r ecent year s because t he pr oof of

t hi s mens r ea was i nsuf f i ci ent ( see Peopl e v Bar boni , 21 NY3d

393, 408 n* [ 2013] [ Smi t h, J . , concur r i ng] [ col l ect i ng cases] ) .

Cases i n whi ch i nt oxi cat ed dr i ver s ki l l i nnocent

peopl e ar e among t he most i nf l ammat or y, and t hus among t he most

l i kel y t o gener at e depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der convi ct i ons wher e

a convi ct i on of a l esser ( but s t i l l ser i ous) c r i me i s al l t hat i s

war r ant ed. These t hr ee cases, t o my mi nd, exempl i f y t hat

pr obl em. The maj or i t y says "i nt oxi cat ed dr i vi ng cases t hat

pr esent ci r cumst ances evi nci ng a depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human

l i f e ar e l i kel y t o be f ew and f ar bet ween" ( maj or i t y op at 2) - -

- 1 -


27/37

- 2 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

yet t oday i t af f i r ms al l t hr ee of t hese convi ct i ons. I n doi ng

so, i t depar t s f r om t he r i gor we have pr evi ousl y shown and makes

i t mor e di f f i cul t t o at t ai n our l ong- sought goal of r eser vi ngconvi ct i ons of t hi s cr i me f or t he ver y f ew cases t hat war r ant

t hem.

I f i nd t he evi dence i n al l t hr ee cases i nsuf f i c i ent t o

suppor t mur der convi ct i ons. My r easoni ng di f f er s as bet ween t he

Hei dgen and McPher son cases on t he one hand, and Tayl or on t he

ot her .

I

Hei dgen and McPher son ar e ver y si mi l ar cases. ( I n

McPher son, a pr eser vat i on pr obl em compl i cat es t he anal ysi s, but I

agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat , f or t he r easons i t expl ai ns,

McPher son ul t i mat el y t ur ns, as does Hei dgen, on whet her t he

evi dence of depr aved i ndi f f er ence was suf f i ci ent . ) I n bot h

cases, a man became ext r emel y dr unk, dr ove f or mi l es t he wr ongway on a di vi ded hi ghway, and caused a f at al acci dent . The

si mpl est and l i kel i est i nf er ence f r om t he evi dence i s t hat bot h

men wer e so dr unk t hat t hey di d not know what t hey wer e doi ng.

Why, af t er al l , woul d anyone do such a danger ous t hi ng on

pur pose?

Of cour se, Hei dgen' s and McPher son' s dr unkenness does

not excuse what t hey di d. They wer e unf or gi vabl y r eckl ess i n

get t i ng on t he hi ghway at al l i n t he condi t i on t hey wer e i n, and

t he consequences of t hei r r eckl essness wer e hor r i bl e. They wer e

- 2 -


28/37

- 3 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

unquest i onabl y gui l t y of mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee, a

cl ass C f el ony puni shabl e by up t o 15 year s i n pr i son ( Penal Law

125. 15 [ 1] , 70. 00 [ 2] [ c] ) , and under t oday' s st at ut es t heywoul d al so be gui l t y of aggr avat ed vehi cul ar homi ci de, a cl ass B

f el ony puni shabl e by up t o 25 year s ( Penal Law 125. 14 [ 1] , [ 4] ,

70. 00 [ 2] [ b] ) . But i t i s c l ear , and t he maj or i t y i mpl i c i t l y

r ecogni zes, t hat unl ess t hese t wo def endant s knew t hey wer e

dr i vi ng t he wr ong way t hey wer e not gui l t y of depr aved

i ndi f f er ence mur der . I n t he absence of such knowl edge, t hei r

conduct does not show " depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e"

( Penal Law 125. 25 [ 2] ) , whi ch we have def i ned t o mean "an ut t er

di sr egar d f or t he val ue of human l i f e - - a wi l l i ngness t o act . .

. because one si mpl y doesn' t car e whet her gr i evous har m r esul t s

or not " ( maj or i t y op at 14, quot i ng Peopl e v Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d

288, 296 [ 2006] ; see Peopl e v Val enci a, 14 NY3d 927 [ 2010] ) .

The maj or i t y deci des t hat t he j ur y coul d have f oundt hat Hei dgen and McPher son " knew t hey wer e dr i vi ng on t he wr ong

si de of t he par kway and pr oceeded r egar dl ess" ( maj or i t y op at

22) . I agr ee t hat , i f t hat happened, t hese def endant s coul d be

f ound gui l t y of depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der ; and per haps i t di d

happen - - but I do not see how a r at i onal j ur y coul d f i nd beyond

a r easonabl e doubt t hat i t di d. Anyone who knowi ngl y dr i ves t he

wr ong way on a di vi ded hi ghway must ei t her have chosen a bi zar r e

way of commi t t i ng sui ci de or el se be pr ey t o some gr andi ose

i l l usi on t hat al l t he ot her car s wi l l get out of hi s way. These

- 3 -


29/37

- 4 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

r ecor ds cont ai n no mor e t han hi nt s t hat ei t her Hei dgen or

McPher son was i n such an ext r aor di nar y st at e of mi nd.

As t o Hei dgen, t her e i s some evi dence t hat he had beenf eel i ng depr essed, but t her e i s al so much uncont r over t ed evi dence

t hat he seemed cheer f ul on t he eveni ng i n quest i on. He t ol d

pol i ce af t er t he acci dent t hat he had been i n "sel f - dest r uct

mode" ; but i n t he same conver sat i on he f or cef ul l y deni ed t hat he

was t r yi ng t o har m hi msel f ( " No, not under any ci r cumst ances" ) .

Dr unk dr i vi ng i s i t sel f sel f - dest r uct i ve behavi or , and I see no

basi s f or i nf er r i ng t hat Hei dgen' s r ef er ence t o hi s own

sel f - dest r uct i veness meant anyt hi ng mor e t han t hi s.

The maj or i t y r el i es mor e heavi l y on t he t est i mony of

t wo wi t nesses t hat , t he maj or i t y says, woul d j ust i f y a f i ndi ng

t hat Hei dgen engaged "i n what amount s t o a hi gh speed game of

chi cken" ( maj or i t y op at 19) . One of t he wi t nesses sai d t hat ,

when t he wi t ness ' s own car "dr i f t ed a l i t t l e t o t he l ef t . . . .i t appear ed as i f [ Hei dgen' s] car was dr i f t i ng wi t h me. "

Anot her , a passenger i n t he l i mousi ne t hat Hei dgen cr ashed i nt o,

t est i f i ed t hat Hei dgen' s car "moved . . . t owar d us . . . .

seemed t o f ol l ow us. " Thi s coul d mean t hat Hei dgen was

del i ber at el y ai mi ng hi s car at t he ot her s, but I do not see how a

r easonabl e j ur or coul d i nf er , wi t h t he conf i dence necessary t o

suppor t a cr i mi nal convi ct i on, t hat t hat i s what he was doi ng.

I t i s an ext r emel y unusual t hi ng t o do.

As t o McPher son, t he evi dence of a depr aved st at e of

- 4 -


30/37

- 5 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

mi nd i s even t hi nner . I t i s a f ai r i nf er ence f r om t he r ecor d

t hat , bef or e he st ar t ed t o dr i ve, McPher son was angr y at hi s

gi r l f r i end and f i r ed sever al gunshot s ( not , so f ar as t he r ecor dshows, at anyone or anyt hi ng i n par t i cul ar ) . Thi s si mpl y does

not pr ove t hat McPher son was ei t her sui ci dal or on a near - i nsane

pur sui t of t hr i l l s - - as he woul d have t o be t o dr i ve knowi ngl y

t he wr ong way. I t i s much mor e l i kel y t hat , i n hi s dr unken r age,

he di d not f ocus on hi s sur r oundi ngs af t er he st ar t ed dr i vi ng.

As t o bot h Hei dgen and McPher son, t he maj or i t y suggest s

t hat t he ver y f act t hat t hey di d dr i ve t he wr ong way f or mi l es,

i gnor i ng many si gns and ot her event s t hat shoul d have al er t ed

t hem, suppor t s an i nf er ence t hat t hey knew what t hey wer e doi ng.

To me, i t suppor t s mor e st r ongl y t he i nf er ence t hat - - as bl ood

t est s pr oved - - t hey wer e ver y dr unk. I gnor i ng war ni ngs t hat

woul d al er t a sober per son i s what dr unk peopl e do. I do not

doubt t hat , as t he maj or i t y says, a dr unk per son i s notbi ol ogi cal l y i ncapabl e of per cei vi ng and r eact i ng t o hi s

sur r oundi ngs, but anyone who has ever met one knows t hat t hey

of t en f ai l t o do so.

I f i nd t he Hei dgen and McPher son cases t o be

i ndi st i ngui shabl e f r om Peopl e v Val enci a ( 14 NY3d 927 [ 2010] ) ,

anot her case i nvol vi ng a dr unken wr ongway dr i ver . The maj or i t y

di st i ngui shes Val enci a on t he gr ound t hat t her e was, i n t hat

case, a f i ndi ng of f act t hat def endant was obl i vi ous t o t he r i sks

he was r unni ng ( maj or i t y op at 15) . But our memor andum i n

- 5 -


31/37

- 6 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

Val enci a does not r el y on, or even ment i on, t hat f i ndi ng; i t says

t he evi dence was " i nsuf f i ci ent " t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of depr aved

i ndi f f er ence. I f i t was i ns uf f i ci ent t her e, i t i s i ns uf f i ci enther e.

Ther e i s, of cour se, one conspi cuous di f f er ence bet ween

t hese t wo cases and Val enci a: Val enci a di d not ki l l anyone. The

convi ct i on we r ever sed i n Val enci a was f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence

assaul t . I n t hese cases, t hr ee peopl e di ed, one of t hem a young

chi l d. Hei dgen and McPher son ar e at f aul t f or t hese deat hs, and

deser ve sever e puni shment . But t hey ar e not - - or at l east , wer e

not pr oved t o be - - mur der er s. They di d not ki l l t hei r vi ct i ms

i nt ent i onal l y, and - - dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor

of t he Peopl e - - t her e i s no mor e t han a possi bi l i t y t hat t hey

di d so wi t h depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human l i f e. Thei r

convi ct i ons s houl d be r educed t o mansl aught er i n t he second

degr ee.II

I woul d al so r educe Tayl or ' s convi ct i on, but her s i s a

di f f er ent sor t of case.

Whi l e we can onl y guess what was i n Hei dgen' s and

McPher son' s mi nds when t hey commi t t ed t hei r cr i mes, t her e i s

consi der abl e evi dence of what Tayl or was t hi nki ng. Whi l e

r ecor di ng a song i n t r i but e t o her l ong- deceased f at her , she t ook

Ecst asy and dr ank beer t o hel p her f eel " cl oser t o her f at her "

and " concent r at e mor e. " Then, af t er becomi ng annoyed wi t h a

- 6 -


32/37

- 7 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

f r i end, she l ef t t he r ecor di ng sessi on, t aki ng her nephew wi t h

her t o "get t he evi l of f " t he chi l d. She t ook t he boy t o her

mot her ' s house, wher e she r emoved f i r st hi s cl ot hes and t hen herown. Af t er an ar gument wi t h her mot her , she l ef t t he house,

s t i l l naked, t r yi ng " t o get away f r om ever yt hi ng, al l t he

pr obl ems, al l t he hat e, al l t he gr eed. " She got i nt o a car ,

want i ng t o dr i ve i t " as f ast as t he car woul d t ake her , as f ast

as she coul d. " She bel i eved t hat " God want ed her t o dr i ve

naked. " As she was dr i vi ng she obser ved t hat " t hi ngs wer e comi ng

at her f ast . " She event ual l y hi t and ki l l ed a pedest r i an: She

l at er r emember ed " hi m bei ng t her e and t hen bei ng gone. " Af t er

she hi t anot her car and her s t ur ned over , she was f ound wi t h her

eyes shut , sayi ng " money, power , r espect " - - a chant she r esumed

af t er l eavi ng t he car , whi l e j umpi ng up and down. Then she got

i nt o a pol i ce car and t r i ed unsuccessf ul l y t o dr i ve i t away.

On t hi s r ecor d, a r easonabl e j ur or coul d i nf er beyond ar easonabl e doubt t hat Tayl or chose t o dr i ve at a ver y hi gh speed,

t hat she knew t hat she mi ght hi t someone, and t hat she was

unmoved by t hat r i sk. I f she wer e not so obvi ousl y ment al l y

i mpai r ed, i t mi ght be r easonabl e t o concl ude f r om t hese f act s

t hat she was depr avedl y i ndi f f er ent t o human l i f e. But i n my

vi ew, t hose wor ds si mpl y cannot be appl i ed t o someone so

unhi nged.

I do not suggest t hat Tayl or was l egal l y i nsane ( t hough

I am somewhat sur pr i sed she di d not r ai se an i nsani t y def ense) ,

- 7 -


33/37

- 8 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

or t hat she had an ext r eme emot i onal di st ur bance as t hat t er m i s

used i n t he Penal Law ( 125. 25 [ 1] [ a] ; such a di st ur bance

r educes what woul d ot her wi se be i nt ent i onal mur der t omansl aught er , but i s not ment i oned i n t he depr aved i ndi f f er ence

mur der st at ut e) . St i l l , i t i s har dl y debat abl e t hat , even by

compar i son wi t h ot her i nt oxi cat ed dr i ver s, Tayl or was i n a hi ghl y

abnor mal condi t i on. Depr aved i ndi f f er ence - - t he wi l l i ngness t o

r i sk har m because one si mpl y does not car e - - i s a mor e

cl ear - si ght ed and col d- bl ooded st at e of mi nd t han t he one t hi s

r ecor d shows. I woul d t her ef or e r educe Tayl or ' s convi ct i on, as

wel l as Hei dgen' s and McPher son' s, t o second degr ee mansl aught er .

- 8 -


34/37

Peopl e v Mar t i n Hei dgenPeopl e v Tal i yah Tayl orPeopl e v Fr ankl i n McPher son

Nos. 174, 176, 177

READ, J . ( DI SSENTI NG) :

J udge Smi t h ampl y demonst r at es t hat t he evi dence i n

t hese t hr ee cases i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t mur der convi ct i ons

under our depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der j ur i spr udence as i t has

st ood at l east si nce Peopl e v Fei ngol d ( 7 NY3d 288 [ 2006] )

over r ul ed Peopl e v Regi st er ( 60 NY2d 270 [ 1983] , cer t . deni ed 466US 953, 104 S. Ct . 2159, 80 L. Ed. 2d 544 [ 1984] ) . We have

el sewher e r ecount ed t he st epwi se pr ogr essi on of our r et r eat f r om

Regi st er ( see gener al l y Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d at 290- 294; Pol i cano v

Her ber t , 7 NY3d 588 [ 2006] ) , and t her e i s no need t o r epeat t hat

nar r at i ve her e. Suf f i ce i t t o say t hat j et t i soni ng Regi st er was

cont r over si al . Onl y t hr ee of t he cur r ent member s of t he Cour t

par t i ci pat ed i n t he r el evant deci si ons; and t wo of t he t hr ee wer e

not per suaded t hat over r ul i ng Regi st er was wi se or necessar y, at

l east not i ni t i al l y ( see Peopl e v Suar ez, 6 NY3d 202, 219 [ 2005] ,

- 1 -


35/37

- 2 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

Read, J . , concur r i ng i n r esul t on const r ai nt ; Gr af f eo, J . ,

di ssent i ng) . But t he Cour t ul t i mat el y deci ded t hat depr aved

i ndi f f er ence i s a cul pabl e ment al st at e; t hat r eckl essness, nomat t er how ext r eme, i s not enough by i t sel f t o suppor t a

convi ct i on f or t he cr i me of depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der . Under

Regi st er , by cont r ast , a convi ct i on f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence

mur der hi nged upon an obj ect i ve assessment of t he degr ee of r i sk

pr esent ed by t he def endant ' s r eckl ess conduct .

Essent i al l y, t he maj or i t y has r esur r ect ed t he Regi st er

st andar d f or cases i n whi ch i nt oxi cat ed dr i ver s ki l l i nnocent

peopl e, or at l east has done so her e i n or der t o sal vage t hese

t hr ee convi ct i ons. But any depar t ur e f r om Fei ngol d f or dr unk

dr i vi ng cases i s cont r ar y not onl y t o our pr ecedent , but al so t o

l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . The l egi s l at ur e i n 2007 - - j ust a year af t er

we deci ded Fei ngol d - - amended t he Penal Law t o cr eat e t he new

cr i me of aggr avat ed vehi cul ar homi ci de, a cl ass B f el ony wi t h apenal t y of up t o 25 year s i n pr i son ( see Penal Law 125. 14; see

al so L 2007, ch 345) . * Thi s cr i me occur s when an i ndi vi dual

ki l l s someone whi l e dr i vi ng wi t h abi l i t y i mpai r ed by al cohol or

dr ugs, al ong wi t h t he pr esence of at l east one of t he f ol l owi ng

f act or s: a bl ood al cohol cont ent of . 18 or hi gher ; a DWI

convi ct i on wi t hi n t he pr evi ous 10 year s; t he cr ash caused t he

deat h of mor e t han a si ngl e per son; t he cr ash ki l l ed one per son

* The f at al i t i es i n t hese t hr ee cases pr edat ed t he st at ut e' sef f ect i ve dat e.

- 2 -


36/37


37/37

- 4 - Nos. 174, 176, 177

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I n Each Case: Or der af f i r med. Opi ni on by Chi ef J udge Li ppman. J udges Gr af f eo, Pi got t , Ri ver a and Abdus- Sal aam concur . J udge

Smi t h di ssent s i n an opi ni on i n whi ch J udge Read concur s i n asepar at e opi ni on.

Deci ded November 21, 2013

ny top court rejects 'too intoxicated' murder defense

Documents