stating that, in overruling Register and Sanchez, the court was simply “confirming what [was] implicit in the line of cases [beginning with] Hafeez”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, in overruling Register and Sanchez, the court was simply “confirming what [was] implicit in the line of cases [beginning with] Hafeez”
- ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears
- noting that a case may state a “ ‘quintessential’ case of depraved indifference murder [where] the circumstantial proof of depraved indifference would be compelling”
- finding that evidence could permit the inference of depraved indifference mens rea
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. DiGuglielmo, 17 N.Y.3d 771 (2011)
Moreover, we reject defendant’s claim that the evidence supporting his conviction of depraved indifference murder is legally insufficient because of our decision in People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288 [2006]).
The opinion
Graffeo, J.
(dissenting). I continue to believe that People v *305 Suarez ( 6 NY3d 202 [2005]) was wrongly decided since it deviated significantly from People v Sanchez ( 98 NY2d 373 [2002]) (see People v Suarez, 6 NY3d at 219 [Graffeo, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part]). Because the majority in this case goes further and overrules Sanchez , I agree with my dissenting colleagues that today’s transformation of the well-settled meaning of “depraved indifference” from an objective factual assessment into a subjective mens rea requirement cannot be reconciled with the language of the reckless endangerment statute or the prior rationale of this Court (see People v Suarez, 6 NY3d at 219-228 [Graffeo, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part]). That being said, my dissenting colleagues have cogently explained why the facts of this case fit within the depraved indifference jurisprudence discussed in Suarez (see id. at 214) and defendant’s conviction should be affirmed on this basis alone.
Judges Rosenblatt, Read and R.S. Smith concur with Judge G.B. Smith; Judge Ciparick dissents and votes to affirm in an opinion in which Chief Judge Kaye concurs; Chief Judge Kaye dissents in another opinion; Judge Graffeo dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion.
Order modified, etc.