People v. Feingold

7 N.Y.3d 288, 852 N.E.2d 1163, 819 N.Y.S.2d 691 (2006) · Court of Appeals of New York · July 5, 2006

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state under the first-degree reckless endangerment statute. Because the trial judge found that the defendant lacked that mental state, the court modified the conviction from first-degree to second-degree reckless endangerment and remitted for resentencing.

Court
Court of Appeals of New York
Writing for the Court
G.B. Smith, J.; Rosenblatt, J.; Read, J.; R.S. Smith, J.; Ciparick, J.; Kaye, C.J.; Graffeo, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
July 5, 2006
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed by leave from an Appellate Division order affirming his nonjury conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment.
Standard of review
Whether the verdict was legally consistent with the required mens rea for first-degree reckless endangerment; preservation of the legal issue was reviewed based on the trial judge's decision.
Precedential value
Published precedential decision of the New York Court of Appeals
Parties
Larry Feingold v. The People of the State of New York
Disposition
remanded

Topics

criminal procedurestatutory interpretationmens reasentencing

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureNew York statutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the issue of whether depraved indifference is a mens rea element was preserved for appellate review.
  2. Whether depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state required for first-degree reckless endangerment under Penal Law § 120.25.
  3. Whether a defendant may be convicted of first-degree reckless endangerment when the factfinder expressly finds that the defendant was not depravedly indifferent.
  4. Whether the conviction should be reduced to second-degree reckless endangerment.

Holdings

  1. The defendant adequately preserved the argument that depraved indifference is a mens rea element because the trial judge specifically confronted and resolved that issue.
  2. Depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state, or mens rea, required for first-degree reckless endangerment.
  3. A conviction for a crime requiring depraved indifference cannot stand when the factfinder expressly finds that the defendant was not depravedly indifferent.
  4. The first-degree reckless-endangerment conviction must be reduced to second-degree reckless endangerment because the record established reckless conduct but the factfinder's express finding negated depraved indifference.

Key quotations

depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state. (294)
When a jury (or here, the court at a bench trial) pointedly says that defendant was not depravedly indifferent, it is not our place to say that he was. (295-296)
The mens rea of depraved indifference to human life can, like any other mens rea, be proved by circumstantial evidence. (296)

Factual background

Defendant attempted suicide in his twelfth-floor Manhattan apartment by sealing the door, turning on the gas after extinguishing the stove pilot lights, taking tranquilizers, and falling asleep. A spark ignited the accumulated gas, causing an explosion that destroyed portions of his apartment and heavily damaged neighboring apartments. No one else was seriously injured, and the trial judge found that defendant had acted recklessly but lacked depraved indifference to human life.

Procedural history

Supreme Court convicted defendant after a bench trial of first-degree reckless endangerment under Penal Law § 120.25 and sentenced him to five years' probation, despite finding that his state of mind was not one of depraved indifference. The Appellate Division affirmed, relying on People v. Register. The Court of Appeals modified the order by reducing the conviction to second-degree reckless endangerment and remitted for resentencing.

Remand instructions

The conviction is reduced to reckless endangerment in the second degree, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court for resentencing; the order is otherwise affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…