stating that Hafeez, Gonzalez, and Sanchez “made it clear that depraved indifference murder may not be properly charged in the overwhelming majority of homicides that are prosecuted in New York”
How later courts described this case
- stating that Hafeez, Gonzalez, and Sanchez “made it clear that depraved indifference murder may not be properly charged in the overwhelming majority of homicides that are prosecuted in New York”
- reversing conviction and noting that recent cases “have made it clear that depraved indifference murder may not be properly charged in the overwhelming majority of homicides that are prosecuted in New York”
- explaining that “[indifference to the victim’s life ... contrasts with the intent to take it”
- holding that “intentional murder does not require planning or contrivance”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated by People v. Feingold, 7 N.Y.3d 288 (2006)
819 N.E.2d 634, 635 (N.Y. 2004), abrogated by People v. Feingold, 852 N.E.2d 1163
The opinion
R.S. Smith, J. (concurring).
I join the Court’s opinion, though I appreciate the force of the dissent’s argument that it is difficult to distinguish People v Hines ( 97 NY2d 56 [2001]). In joining the majority, I am influenced to some degree by my doubt that the rule of Hines is a wise one. I think the majority is correct in giving Hines a restrictive reading.