Court of Appeals examines 'Depraved Indifference Murder'

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Jan 11, 2006 by Kevin M. Momot

In two separate cases, the defendants were found guilty of depraved indifference murder, which the Appellate Division affirmed. However, the New York State Court of Appeals determined the evidence in each case was legally insufficient to support the convictions.

In People v. Santos Suarez and People v. Trisha McPherson, the Court of Appeals reversed both convictions and remitted the cases to the Appellate Division for further proceedings. In its decision, the appeals court provided extensive analysis of the requirements for depraved indifference murder, as compared to other categories of homicide.

The Facts

'People v. Suarez'

On Feb. 22, 2000, defendant Santos Suarez stabbed his girlfriend, Jovanna Gonzalez, three times - once in the throat, once in the chest and once in the abdomen. Suarez fled without summoning assistance, and Gonzalez eventually bled to death.

Suarez was indicted for Intentional Murder, Depraved Indifference Murder, Intentional Manslaughter and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. At his trial, he testified that he never intended to kill Gonzalez.

Charged on the defense of justification and the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, the jury acquitted Suarez of intentional murder but convicted him of depraved indifference murder.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish guilt of depraved indifference murder.

'People v. McPherson'

On Feb. 12, 2000, defendant Trisha McPherson visited the home of Kirk Wright, her former boyfriend. During an argument over child support, McPherson stabbed Wright once in the chest.

When she saw that Wright was bleeding, McPherson immediately called 911 and requested an ambulance. Before the ambulance arrived, however, McPherson left the scene.

At her nonjury trial for Depraved Indifference Murder, First- Degree Manslaughter and Fourth-Degree Weapon Possession, McPherson testified that she had been a long-suffering victim of domestic violence at the hands of Wright, and that she was acting in self- defense when she killed him. The court, however, rejected her justification defense and found her guilty of depraved indifference murder.

Again the Appellate Division affirmed McPherson's conviction, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish guilt of depraved indifference murder.

Court's Analysis

In both cases, the Court of Appeals concluded there was insufficient evidence to support depraved indifference murder, and reversed both convictions.

Distinction From Intentional Murder

The court first noted pursuant to Penal Law Section 125.25 (2), a person commits depraved indifference murder when [u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.

According to the court, a killing (whether intentional or unintentional) is not transformed into depraved indifference murder simply because the killer does not summon aid for the victim. Otherwise, homicides would often be converted into depraved indifference murders whenever the killer leaves the scene.

Also, a homicide does not become a depraved indifference murder merely because the killer summons aid and therefore reveals an intent for the victim not to die.

Distinction From Intentional Manslaughter

To constitute depraved indifference, the appeals court stated the defendant's conduct must be 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 warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes the death of another, People v. Russell, 91 NY2d 280, 287-288 (1998), quoting People v. Fenner, 61 NY2d 971, 973 (1984).

The vast majority of homicides do not meet this standard, the court concluded. They instead fall under intentional murder or manslaughter in the first or second degree or criminally negligent homicide.

Distinction From Reckless Manslaughter

The Court of Appeals also differentiated depraved indifference from reckless manslaughter, stating that reckless manslaughter cannot be elevated into depraved indifference murder merely because the actions of the defendant created a risk of death, however grave or substantial that risk may have been.

[D]epraved indifference is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life - a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply doesn't care whether grievous harm results or not, the court wrote.

Application

In Suarez, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant's acts in stabbing his victim in the throat, chest and abdomen did not constitute depraved indifference murder. Whether Suarez intended to kill his girlfriend or merely to cause her serious injury, the actions did not reflect a depraved indifference to her fate, the court noted.

Also, in McPherson, the defendant's conduct constituted recklessness but did not fall within the small, and finite, category of cases evidencing utter depravity, uncommon brutality and inhuman cruelty required for depraved indifference murder.