=================================================================

Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or e

publ i cat i on i n t he New Yor k Repor t s.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No. 135
The Peopl e &c. ,
Respondent ,
v.
J ose Mal donado,
Appel l ant .
J oshua M. Levi ne, f or appel l ant .
Di ane R. Ei sner , f or r espondent .
RI VERA, J . :
I n t hi s appeal , we concl ude t hat t he evi dence was
l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t def endant ' s convi ct i on f or
- 1 -
- 2 - No. 135
depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der because t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s
hi gh- speed vehi cul ar pol i ce chase do not f i t wi t hi n t he nar r ow
cat egor y of cases wher ei n t he f act s evi nce a def endant ' s ut t er
di sr egar d f or human l i f e. Accor di ngl y, we modi f y t he Appel l at e
Di vi si on' s or der by r educi ng def endant ' s convi ct i on t o
mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee.
I .
Pol i ce pur sued def endant J ose Mal donado t hr ough t he
st r eet s of Gr eenpoi nt , Br ookl yn, a mi xed commer ci al - r esi dent i al
nei ghbor hood, soon af t er he st ol e a mi ni van f r omout si de i t s
owner ' s r esi dence. Thi s f i ve- mi nut e, mi dday chase l ed t o
def endant ' s f at al col l i si on wi t h a pedest r i an and hi s pr osecut i on
and convi ct i on f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der . Def endant
concedes t hat t he evi dence est abl i shed hi s r eckl ess dr i vi ng but
ar gues t hat i t onl y suppor t s a convi ct i on f or mansl aught er i n t he
second degr ee. Thus, i n t hi s appeal , we ar e onl y concer ned wi t h
whet her t he pr oof at t r i al evi nced t he st at ut or i l y r equi r ed
ment al st at e t o sust ai n hi s convi ct i on f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence
mur der .
I t i s undi sput ed t hat def endant consi st ent l y dr ove wel l
above t he 30 mi l es per hour speed l i mi t and vi ol at ed numer ous
t r af f i c r ul es as he at t empt ed t o evade capt ur e by t he pol i ce.
The chase began when def endant r an a r ed l i ght , accel er at ed
t hr ough i nt er sect i ons, and went t he wr ong way down t wo one- way
- 2 -
- 3 - No. 135
st r eet s. The pol i ce f ol l owed wi t h l i ght s and si r ens act i vat ed as
def endant dr ove t owar ds Manhat t an Avenue, a maj or t hor oughf ar e
and commer ci al hub. Def endant t ur ned ont o t he avenue wher e,
accor di ng t o wi t nesses, t her e was heavy vehi cul ar and pedest r i an
t r af f i c. As he dr ove nor t h, def endant swer ved i nt o t he
sout hbound l ane t o pass sl ower vehi cl es and avoi d congest i on, and
t hen shi f t ed back i nt o t he nor t hbound l ane. Wi t nesses est i mat ed
t hat he was dr i vi ng 40 t o 50 mi l es per hour .
A f ew bl ocks up Manhat t an Avenue, def endant r an a
second r ed l i ght and nar r owl y avoi ded hi t t i ng a pedest r i an i n a
cr osswal k. Accor di ng t o wi t nesses, def endant di d not br ake or
sl ow down. I nst ead, he accel er at ed nor t h and agai n swer ved
acr oss t he doubl e- yel l ow l i nes i nt o t he sout hbound l ane t o avoi d
sl ower movi ng vehi cl es. A dr i ver goi ng sout h t est i f i ed t hat
def endant di d not sl ow down when he ent er ed t he opposi ng l ane of
t r af f i c. As a consequence, t he dr i ver had t o swer ve t o t he si de
of t he r oad t o avoi d a col l i si on. Once cl ear of congest i on,
def endant swer ved back i nt o t he nor t hbound l ane.
A bl ock l at er , def endant r an a t hi r d r ed l i ght and
st r uck a woman i n a cr osswal k. The vi ct i mhi t t he passenger si de
of t he mi ni van' s wi ndshi el d wi t h such f or ce t hat her body l anded
mor e t han 100 f eet down t he avenue. She di ed at t he scene. At
t hat poi nt , t he pol i ce st opped f ol l owi ng def endant t o r ender ai d
t o t he vi ct i m.
Def endant cont i nued accel er at i ng nor t h on Manhat t an
- 3 -
- 4 - No. 135
Avenue, agai n swer vi ng i nt o t he sout hbound l ane. A dr i ver headed
sout h t est i f i ed t hat def endant sped t owar ds hi mat a r at e of
about 50 t o 70 mi l es per hour . As a r esul t , he had t o swer ve
i nt o t he nor t hbound l ane t o avoi d a head- on col l i si on wi t h
def endant . Af t er t he dr i ver swer ved, def endant ' s escape r out es
wer e appar ent l y bl ocked by car s i n bot h t he nor t h and sout hbound
l anes.
The chase ended a f ew bl ocks f r omwher e def endant
st r uck t he pedest r i an, when def endant cr ashed t he mi ni van i nt o a
par ked car t o avoi d hi t t i ng ot her vehi cl es. The i mpact pushed
t he par ked car over t he car s par ked behi nd i t . Def endant , st i l l
t r yi ng t o escape capt ur e, r an out of t he mi ni van and down a
near by st r eet , f ol l owed by t he dr i ver who had j ust swer ved t o
avoi d a col l i si on wi t h def endant and a gr oup of pedest r i ans who
wi t nessed t he cr ash. The gr oup caught up wi t h def endant and
t ackl ed and hel d hi munt i l t he pol i ce ar r i ved and put hi munder
ar r est .
At t he pr eci nct , def endant admi t t ed t hat he st ol e t he
mi ni van, exceeded t he speed l i mi t , and swer ved i nt o oncomi ng
t r af f i c as he f l ed t he pol i ce. I n expl ai ni ng hi s dr i vi ng,
def endant sai d he t r i ed t o avoi d hi t t i ng car s and pedest r i ans,
and t hat he di d not know t he nei ghbor hood wel l and dr ove down t he
one- way st r eet s by mi st ake. Def endant sai d he was l ost when he
ended up on Manhat t an Avenue, and t hat he was avoi di ng car s as he
evaded t he pol i ce. Accor di ng t o def endant , he was goi ng agai nst
- 4 -
- 5 - No. 135
t r af f i c and l ooki ng i n hi s r ear vi ew mi r r or f or t he pol i ce
i mmedi at el y bef or e he st r uck t he vi ct i m. When he l ooked f or war d
agai n, def endant sai d he saw t he vi ct i mand t hat he t hought he
" hi t t he gi r l i n t he hand or somet hi ng. " When he saw mor e peopl e
and t r af f i c t wo bl ocks l at er , def endant deci ded t o cr ash i nt o t he
par ked car t o avoi d hur t i ng anyone el se. He al so expr essed
r emor se f or hi s act i ons.
Def endant was char ged wi t h numer ous cr i mes ar i si ng f r om
t he t hef t of t he mi ni van and t he deat h of t he pedest r i an,
i ncl udi ng mur der i n t he second degr ee ( depr aved i ndi f f er ence
mur der ) ( Penal Law 125. 25 [ 2] ) , mansl aught er i n t he second
degr ee ( Penal Law 125. 15 [ 1] ) , cr i mi nal l y negl i gent homi ci de
( Penal Law 125. 10) , unl awf ul f l eei ng of a pol i ce of f i cer i n a
mot or vehi cl e i n t he t hi r d degr ee ( Penal Law 270. 25) , unl awf ul
f l eei ng of a pol i ce of f i cer i n a mot or vehi cl e i n t he f i r st
degr ee ( Penal Law 270. 35) , gr and l ar ceny i n t he f our t h degr ee
( Penal Law 155. 30 [ 8] ) , and cr i mi nal possessi on of st ol en
pr oper t y i n t he f our t h degr ee ( Penal Law 165. 45 [ 5] ) . At
t r i al , def endant moved at t he cl ose of t he Peopl e' s case and
agai n af t er def ense r est ed, f or di smi ssal of t he depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der char ge on t he gr ound t hat t he Peopl e f ai l ed
t o est abl i sh t he r equi si t e ment al st at e. I n suppor t of t he
mot i ons, he ar gued t hat t he evi dence showed he r epeat edl y swer ved
t o avoi d hi t t i ng pedest r i ans and car s, i ndi cat i ng t hat hi s
dr i vi ng was mer el y r eckl ess. Supr eme Cour t deni ed t he f i r st
- 5 -
- 6 - No. 135
mot i on, r eser ved j udgment on t he second and submi t t ed, over
def endant ' s obj ect i on, a char ge of depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der
t o t he j ur y al ong wi t h ot her r el evant char ges.
The j ur y f ound def endant gui l t y of depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der , unl awf ul f l eei ng of a pol i ce of f i cer i n a
mot or vehi cl e i n t he f i r st degr ee, and gr and l ar ceny i n t he
f our t h degr ee. Af t er t he ver di ct , def endant r enewed hi s mot i on
f or a t r i al or der of di smi ssal f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der .
Supr eme Cour t deni ed t he mot i on, f i ndi ng t he evi dence i n t hi s
case compar abl e t o t hat i n Peopl e v Gomez ( 65 NY2d 9 [ 1985] ) , and
si mi l ar l y suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi ct i on of depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der . Supr eme Cour t sent enced def endant t o an
aggr egat e pr i son t er mof 20 year s t o l i f e.
Def endant appeal ed, asser t i ng l egal suf f i ci ency and
wei ght of t he evi dence chal l enges t o hi s depr aved i ndi f f er ence
mur der convi ct i on. The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med ( see Peopl e v
Mal donado, 100 AD3d 657 [ 2d Dept 2012] ) . A J udge of t hi s Cour t
gr ant ed def endant l eave t o appeal ( 21 NY3d 1044 [ 2013] ) .
I I .
A.
A per son i s gui l t y of depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der
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 [ such per son] r eckl essl y engages i n conduct whi ch
cr eat es a gr ave r i sk of deat h t o anot her per son, and t her eby
- 6 -
- 7 - No. 135
causes t he deat h of anot her per son" ( Penal Law 125. 25 [ 2] ) .
Depr aved i ndi f f er ence i s a cul pabl e ment al st at e whi ch " 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"
( Peopl e v Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d 288, 296 [ 2006] [ i nt er nal quot at i on
mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed] ) . Thus, " a depr aved and ut t er l y
i ndi f f er ent act or i s someone who does not car e i f anot her i s
i nj ur ed or ki l l ed" ( i d. [ i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on
omi t t ed] ) . Due t o t he want on nat ur e of t hi s mens r ea, " depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der pr oper l y appl i es onl y t o a smal l , and f i ni t e,
cat egor y of cases wher e t he conduct i s at l east as mor al l y
r epr ehensi bl e as i nt ent i onal mur der " ( Peopl e v Suar ez, 6 NY3d
202, 207 [ 2005] ) .
A def endant who knowi ngl y pur sues r i sky behavi or t hat
endanger s ot her s does not necessar i l y evi nce depr aved
i ndi f f er ence by engagi ng i n t hat conduct . As we have expl ai ned,
" [ a] per son who i s depr avedl y i ndi f f er ent i s not j ust wi l l i ng t o
t ake a gr ossl y unr easonabl e r i sk t o human l i f e - - t hat per son
does not car e how t he r i sk t ur ns out " ( Peopl e v Lewi e, 17 NY3d
348, 359 [ 2011] ) . " The el ement of depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human
l i f e compr i ses bot h depr avi t y and i ndi f f er ence, and has meani ng
i ndependent of r eckl essness and t he gr avi t y of t he r i sk cr eat ed"
( Peopl e v McMi l l on, 31 AD3d 136, 139 [ 2d Dept 2006] , l v deni ed 7
NY3d 815 [ 2006] ) . I n shor t , t he mens r ea of depr aved
i ndi f f er ence wi l l r ar el y be est abl i shed by r i sky behavi or al one.
- 7 -
- 8 - No. 135
B.
Def endant concedes t hat hi s conduct was r eckl ess, but
cont ends t hat t he evi dence f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t he depr avedl y
i ndi f f er ent ment al st at e r equi r ed by t he st at ut e. We agr ee t hat
under t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent
evi dence t o suppor t def endant ' s convi ct i on f or depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der .
A convi ct i on i s l egal l y i nsuf f i ci ent wher e, vi ewi ng t he
r ecor d i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he pr osecut i on, t her e i s
no " val i d l i ne of r easoni ng and per mi ssi bl e i nf er ences f r omwhi 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] ; see Peopl e v Wi l l i ams, 84 NY2d 925, 926 [ 1994] ; Peopl e v
Cont es, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [ 1983] ) . Wher e t he Peopl e f ai l t o of f er
evi dence evi nci ng a def endant ' s ut t er di sr egar d f or human l i f e
t her e can be no basi s f or a j ur y' s f i ndi ng of gui l t on a depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der char ge. Wi t hout such evi dence, a j ur y cannot
r easonabl y concl ude t hat t he def endant di d not car e whet her
someone l i ved or di ed and as a consequence was depr avedl y
i ndi f f er ent .
Her e, def endant sought t o mi t i gat e t he consequences of
hi s r eckl ess dr i vi ng because he " act i vel y at t empt [ ed] t o avoi d
hi t t i ng ot her vehi cl es" by swer vi ng, conduct whi ch est abl i shes a
l ack of depr aved i ndi f f er ence ( Peopl e v Hei dgen, 22 NY3d 259, 276
[ 2013] ; see Peopl e v Pr i ndl e, 16 NY3d 768, 771 [ 2011] ) . Al t hough
- 8 -
- 9 - No. 135
def endant dr ove on t he wr ong si de of t he r oad, t hi s conduct was
epi sodi c and par t of hi s ef f or t t o avoi d ot her vehi cl es whi l e
evadi ng t he pol i ce. Thi s consci ous avoi dance of r i sk i s t he
ant i t hesi s of a compl et e di sr egar d f or t he saf et y of ot her s.
Def endant was unquest i onabl y r eckl ess, but he was not depr avedl y
i ndi f f er ent as we have def i ned and i nt er pr et ed t hat st at e of
mi nd. Unl i ke our di ssent i ng col l eagues, we concl ude t hat , gi ven
t hi s evi dence, a r at i onal j ur y coul d not have r easonabl y f ound
depr aved i ndi f f er ence beyond a r easonabl e doubt .
Our anal ysi s i n Hei dgen i l l ust r at es why t he f act s of
def endant ' s case ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a di f f er ent
concl usi on. I n Hei dgen, we uphel d t hr ee depr aved i ndi f f er ence
mur der convi ct i ons i nvol vi ng i nt oxi cat ed dr i ver s. We concl uded
t he evi dence suf f i ci ent l y est abl i shed t he r espect i ve def endant s'
compl et e di sr egar d f or t he r i sk cr eat ed by t hei r r eckl ess dr i vi ng
and t hei r t ot al l ack of concer n f or t he l i f e and wel f ar e of
ot her s ( see Hei dgen, 22 NY3d at 267) . Two of t he def endant s i n
Hei dgen dr ove af t er mi dni ght , i n t he ear l y mor ni ng hour s, at
excessi ve speeds on a par kway or maj or t hor oughf ar e ( see i d. at
268, 273) . The t hi r d def endant sped on a l ocal r oad l at e at
ni ght ( see i d. at 271- 272) . Each of t he def endant s dr ove a
si gni f i cant di st ance i n t he wr ong di r ect i on, di r ect l y t owar ds
oncomi ng t r af f i c, and di d not swer ve t o avoi d col l i si ons wi t h
ot her vehi cl es.
I n Peopl e v Hei dgen, t he def endant " dr ove t he wr ong way
- 9 -
- 10 - No. 135
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, " and " appear ed t o f ol l ow, or t r ack, t he
headl i ght s of oncomi ng vehi cl es" ( 22 NY3d at 277) . The evi dence
showed t hat t he def endant not onl y f ai l ed t o move out of t he way,
but act ual l y f ol l owed t he ot her dr i ver s' movement s as t hey sought
t o avoi d col l i di ng wi t h hi m, i n what we char act er i zed as " a hi gh
speed game of chi cken" ( i d. ) . The def endant i n Peopl e v Tayl or ,
sped " wi t hout headl i ght s, on t he wr ong si de of t he r oad, . . .
[ and] di d not . . . make any at t empt t o swer ve" ( i d. at 271- 272) .
I n Peopl e v McPher son, t he def endant " t r avel ed about f i ve mi l es
i n t he wr ong di r ect i on . . . [ and] made no at t empt t o br ake or t o
avoi d ot her vehi cl es" ( i d. at 273) .
Unl i ke t he def endant s i n Hei dgen, def endant never
t r acked or f ol l owed t he movement s of any dr i ver , nor di d he
pur posef ul l y i mpede anot her dr i ver ' s ef f or t s t o avoi d a
col l i si on. Def endant dr ove i n t he wr ong l ane f or br i ef per i ods
of t i me i n or der t o pass ot her car s, not as par t of a deadl y
game. He i mmedi at el y r et ur ned t o t he pr oper l ane once cl ear of
congest i on i n or der t o avoi d hi t t i ng ot her vehi cl es. Eyewi t ness
t est i mony est abl i shed t hat he r epeat edl y t r i ed t o avoi d
col l i si ons whi l e evadi ng capt ur e by t he pol i ce. Al t hough
def endant swer ved ar ound car s and acr oss l anes of t r af f i c, he di d
so bot h t o speed hi s f l i ght and t o avoi d cr ashi ng i nt o ot her
vehi cl es or pedest r i ans.
Def endant ' s r eckl ess dr i vi ng does not , on i t s own,
- 10 -
- 11 - No. 135
est abl i sh t he r equi si t e mens r ea of depr aved i ndi f f er ence. I f
car el ess and unsaf e dr i vi ng wer e enough t o meet t hi s r equi r ement ,
t hen we woul d have af f i r med t he def endant ' s convi ct i on of
depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der i n Peopl e v Pr i ndl e ( 16 NY3d 768
[ 2011] ) , a case i nvol vi ng f act s al most i dent i cal t o t hose at
i ssue bef or e us i n t hi s appeal . I nst ead, i n Pr i ndl e, we r educed
t he def endant ' s convi ct i on t o mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee.
I n t hat case, t he def endant l ed t he pol i ce on a hi gh-
speed chase al ong hi ghways and r esi dent i al st r eet s i n Rochest er
( see i d. at 771 [ Pi got t , J . , di ssent i ng] ) . The def endant sped,
dr ove er r at i cal l y, cr ossed doubl e- yel l ow l i nes i nt o oncomi ng
t r af f i c, and wove i nt o t he passi ng l ane ( i d. at 772) . He al so
bar r el ed t hr ough sever al r ed l i ght s and caused t he dr i ver s of
ot her car s t o swer ve or st op t o avoi d a col l i si on. Af t er t he
pol i ce deact i vat ed t hei r l i ght s and si r en, t he def endant
cont i nued t o speed, swer ved i nt o oncomi ng t r af f i c, t ur ned ont o
l ocal st r eet s, r an a r ed l i ght , and st r uck a t r uck ( see i d. at
772- 773) . Ther eaf t er , al t hough he had r oom" t o navi gat e ar ound
[ i t ] , " t he def endant hi t anot her car and ki l l ed one of i t s
occupant s ( i d. at 773) . Never t hel ess, we concl uded t hat t he
evi dence f ai l ed t o " evi nce[ ] a depr aved i ndi f f er ence t o human
l i f e" ( i d. at 770- 771) .
1

1
I n Pr i ndl e, we appl i ed t he t r i al cour t ' s depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der char ge as gi ven wi t hout except i on, whi ch was
based on t he obj ect i ve- ci r cumst ances st andar d ar t i cul at ed i n
Peopl e v Regi st er ( 60 NY2d 270 [ 1983] ) . Never t hel ess, Pr i ndl e
- 11 -
- 12 - No. 135
Li ke t he def endant i n Pr i ndl e, def endant her e dr ove
t hr ough a popul at ed ar ea, exceeded t he speed l i mi t , r an r ed
l i ght s, swer ved acr oss doubl e- yel l ow l i nes i nt o oncomi ng t r af f i c,
and dr ove t he wr ong way on one- way st r eet s. Sever al wi t nesses
t est i f i ed t hat def endant swer ved t o avoi d hi t t i ng ot her car s or
pedest r i ans. Thus, as i n Pr i ndl e wher e t he def endant was
" act i vel y at t empt i ng t o avoi d hi t t i ng ot her vehi cl es, "
def endant ' s conduct her e di d not evi nce an ut t er di sr egar d f or
human l i f e ( Hei dgen, 22 NY3d at 276) .
Accor di ng t o t he Peopl e, def endant ' s conduct was mor e
egr egi ous t han t hat f ound i n Pr i ndl e and const i t ut es l egal l y
suf f i ci ent evi dence of hi s depr aved i ndi f f er ence. I n par t i cul ar ,
t he Peopl e cl ai mt hat def endant showed an ut t er l ack of concer n
f or human l i f e because he f ai l ed t o modi f y hi s dr i vi ng af t er
nar r owl y mi ssi ng a pedest r i an.
2
The Peopl e cont end t hat
def endant ' s near - mi ss of a pedest r i an was measur abl y wor se t han
t he Pr i ndl e def endant ' s act ual col l i si on wi t h a t r uck, because
pedest r i ans ar e mor e vul ner abl e t o i nj ur y t han ar e t he occupant s
of vehi cl es. The Peopl e' s cr eat i ve at t empt t o di st i ngui sh a
cont i nues t o pr ovi de i mpor t ant gui dance because wher e, as i n t hat
case, t he evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh depr aved
i ndi f f er ence under Regi st er , i t wi l l most assur edl y f ai l t o meet
t he Fei ngol d cul pabl e- ment al st at e r equi r ement .
2
The di ssent agr ees. However , as Pr i ndl e makes cl ear ,
at t empt i ng t o avoi d a col l i si on wi t h ot her s, even i f done i n a
r eckl ess manner , i s i nsuf f i ci ent pr oof of depr aved i ndi f f er ence
( see Pr i ndl e, 16 NY3d at 770- 771) . Rat her , i t suggest s t he
opposi t e ( see Hei dgen, 22 NY3d at 276) .
- 12 -
- 13 - No. 135
near - mi ss f r oman act ual col l i si on i s not per suasi ve because,
al t hough t her e i s a gr ave r i sk of i nj ur y i n ei t her case, gr avi t y
of r i sk al one i s not det er mi nat i ve of t he r equi si t e ment al st at e.
What mat t er s i n a depr aved i ndi f f er ence anal ysi s i s
t hat a def endant - - even one " wi l l i ng t o t ake a gr ossl y
unr easonabl e r i sk t o human l i f e" - - " does not car e how t he r i sk
t ur ns out " ( Lewi e, 17 NY3d at 359) . Cer t ai nl y, t he def endant i n
Pr i ndl e was awar e of t he r i sk posed by hi s cont i nued r eckl ess
dr i vi ng af t er r unni ng a r ed l i ght and st r i ki ng a t r uck i n an
i nt er sect i on. Never t hel ess, t he def endant went t hr ough t wo mor e
r ed l i ght s bef or e t he f i nal col l i si on t hat r esul t ed i n t he
vi ct i m' s deat h. On t hose f act s, we f ound t he evi dence l egal l y
i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a depr aved i ndi f f er ence convi ct i on.
Her e, def endant mi ssed a pedest r i an, and hi s dr i vi ng af t er war ds -
- char act er i zed by hi s ef f or t s t o swer ve away f r omt r af f i c and
avoi d col l i si ons - - does not evi nce a depr avedl y i ndi f f er ent
ment al st at e.
The Peopl e al so cont end t hat , because he t ook hi s eyes
of f t he r oad t o check f or pol i ce i n t he r ear vi ew mi r r or
i mmedi at el y bef or e hi s col l i si on wi t h t he vi ct i m, def endant ' s
conduct was mor e r epr ehensi bl e t han t hat of t he def endant i n
Pr i ndl e and shows he was depr avedl y i ndi f f er ent . We f i nd t hi s
moment ar y act i on i nsuf f i ci ent t o t r ansf or mdef endant ' s i nt ent t o
t he t ype of depr avi t y r equi r ed under t he st at ut e. Looki ng i n t he
r ear vi ew mi r r or was a mani f est at i on of def endant ' s cont i nued
- 13 -
- 14 - No. 135
desi r e t o evade t he pol i ce, not hi s t ot al di sr egar d f or whet her
hi s r eckl ess dr i vi ng ki l l ed someone. A def endant may
si mul t aneousl y i nt end t o f l ee pol i ce and avoi d st r i ki ng ot her
car s or pedest r i ans. These i nt ent s ar e not mut ual l y excl usi ve
even i f , as i s t he case her e, t he at t empt ed escape i s car r i ed out
i n a r eckl ess manner . Whi l e def endant swer ved i nt o opposi ng
l anes of t r af f i c and exceeded t he speed l i mi t , he al so " act i vel y
at t empt [ ed] t o avoi d hi t t i ng ot her vehi cl es" ( Hei dgen, 22 NY3d at
276) . Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat hi s conduct i n doi ng so was
mot i vat ed sol el y by hi s i nt ent t o evade capt ur e, r egar dl ess of
t he r i sk t o human l i f e. The f act t hat def endant i nt ended t o
avoi d capt ur e, as wel l as acci dent s, does not el evat e t he case t o
depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der .
The Peopl e f ur t her specul at e t hat def endant ended t he
chase by cr ashi ng t he mi ni van i nt o a par ked car , not out of
concer n f or t he wel f ar e of ot her s, but because ot her car s wer e
bl ocki ng hi s escape. Agai n, wi t hout di r ect evi dence of
def endant ' s i nt ent , t he Peopl e essent i al l y r el y on evi dence of
def endant ' s r eckl ess dr i vi ng t o est abl i sh t he cul pabl e ment al
st at e. However , r eckl essness and depr aved i ndi f f er ence ar e
separ at e mens r ea. Her e, assumi ng t he Peopl e pr of f er ed evi dence
i ndi cat i ng t hat def endant was awar e of and di sr egar ded t he
subst ant i al r i sk of i nj ur y or deat h caused by hi s dr i vi ng, t hey
f ai l ed t o submi t evi dence est abl i shi ng t hat def endant di d not
car e whet her gr i evous har mr esul t ed ( see Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d at
- 14 -
- 15 - No. 135
296) . Thus, no r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude t hat def endant was
depr avedl y i ndi f f er ent .
Never t hel ess, r el yi ng on t he deci si on of t he t r i al
cour t , t he Peopl e cont end t hat t he f act s her e most cl osel y mi r r or
t hose i n Peopl e v Gomez ( 65 NY2d at 9) and we shoul d appl y a
si mi l ar anal ysi s t o uphol d def endant ' s depr aved i ndi f f er ence
convi ct i on. Our anal ysi s i n Gomez, whi ch appl i ed t he over r ul ed
Regi st er st andar d, does not bi nd us her e. Rat her , our deci si on
i n Hei dgen pr ovi des t he appr opr i at e basi s t o anal yze def endant ' s
dr i vi ng and whet her t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o f i nd t he
r equi si t e cul pabl e ment al st at e. As our di scussi on of Hei dgen
makes cl ear , t hi s case i s not one of t he ver y f ew wher ei n a
def endant ' s " cul pabi l i t y i s t he equi val ent of an i nt ent i onal
mur der er " ( Hei dgen, 22 NY3d at 277) .
I f we accept ed t he Peopl e' s ar gument , depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der coul d ar guabl y be char ged i n ever y case wher e
a def endant ki l l ed someone dur i ng a hi gh- speed pol i ce chase. By
i t s nat ur e, a hi gh- speed chase endanger s pedest r i ans and ot her
dr i ver s and car r i es t he pot ent i al f or gr ave i nj ur i es and
f at al i t i es. Def endant s who t ake par t i n hi gh- speed chases
vi ol at e accept ed r ul es of t he r oad and dr i ve i n what i s gener al l y
consi der ed a r eckl ess manner . Yet , not ever y vehi cul ar pol i ce
chase r esul t i ng i n deat h wi l l t ake pl ace under ci r cumst ances
evi nci ng t he def endant ' s depr aved i ndi f f er ence. Cases of
depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der " ar e hi ghl y f act - speci f i c and
- 15 -
- 16 - No. 135
dependent upon t he i ndi vi dual def endant ' s par t i cul ar ment al st at e
- - a f act or t hat may be ext r emel y di f f i cul t t o est abl i sh"
( Hei dgen, 22 NY3d at 276) . Wher e, as her e, t her e i s no
addi t i onal evi dence evi nci ng a f l eei ng def endant ' s want on
di sr egar d f or t he r i sk t hat t he def endant ' s r eckl ess f l i ght f r om
pol i ce poses t o ot her s, a char ge f or depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der
shoul d not be submi t t ed t o t he j ur y.
Accor di ngl y, t he Appel l at e Di vi si on or der shoul d be
modi f i ed by r educi ng def endant ' s convi ct i on of mur der i n t he
second degr ee t o mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee and r emi t t i ng
t o Supr eme Cour t f or r esent enci ng and, as so modi f i ed, af f i r med.
- 16 -
Peopl e v J ose Mal donado
No. 135
PI GOTT, J . ( di ssent i ng) :
Once agai n, a per son i s dead because a def endant ,
concer ned about bei ng ar r est ed f or t hef t , l ed pol i ce on a hi gh-
speed chase t hr ough r esi dent i al nei ghbor hoods ( compar e Peopl e v
Pr i ndl e, 16 NY3d 768, 771- 775 [ 2011] [ Pi got t , J . , di ssent i ng] ) .
And, once agai n, t he maj or i t y t r eat s t hi s cr i me wi t h unf at homabl e
and unj ust i f i ed l eni ency ( compar e Pr i ndl e, 16 NY3d at 769- 771) .
Af t er he hot - wi r ed and st ol e a mi ni van i n a r esi dent i al
nei ghbor hood i n Br ookl yn, def endant J ose Mal donado abr upt l y
over t ook an unmar ked pol i ce vehi cl e near t he i nt er sect i on of
Gr ahamAvenue and J ackson St r eet . Pol i ce Of f i cer St even Tr ugl i o
si gnal ed f or def endant t o st op; as t he of f i cer appr oached on
f oot , def endant put t he mi ni van i nt o gear and sped of f up Gr aham
Avenue. Pur sued by t he pol i ce vehi cl e, def endant qui ckl y
exceeded t he l ocal speed l i mi t of 30 m. p. h. and dr ove t hr ough a
r ed l i ght at Meeker Avenue. He t hen t ur ned r i ght on Dr i ggs
Avenue, dr i vi ng t he wr ong way on t hi s one- way st r eet , bef or e
t ur ni ng ont o McGui ness Boul evar d. Def endant t hen pr oceeded t he
wr ong way on anot her one- way st r eet , Enger t Avenue, f or t hr ee
bl ocks, bef or e t ur ni ng ont o Manhat t an Avenue.
Speedi ng nor t h al ong t he avenue, and accel er at i ng,
- 1 -
- 2 - No. 135
def endant encount er ed ext r emel y heavy t r af f i c, on t hi s weekday
af t er noon i n spr i ng. Of f i cer Tr ugl i o obser ved def endant dar t i ng
f r omhi s nor t hbound l ane i nt o t he sout hbound l ane, and swer vi ng
i n and out of t he oncomi ng t r af f i c i n hi s ef f or t t o escape. A
byst ander est i mat ed t hat def endant was exceedi ng t he speed l i mi t
by 10 or 20 m. p. h. , whi l e dr i vi ng nor t h i n t he sout hbound l ane.
At t he i nt er sect i on of Manhat t an Avenue and Mi l t on
St r eet , about hal f a mi l e t o t he nor t h, def endant went t hr ough
anot her r ed l i ght , near l y st r i ki ng a pedest r i an a woman who was
i n t he pr ocess of cr ossi ng t he avenue. She was abl e t o di ve out
of t he way of t he oncomi ng mi ni van. Def endant di d not even appl y
hi s br akes.
1
I n f act , he cont i nued t o accel er at e, and appr oached
t he i nt er sect i on of Manhat t an Avenue and Kent St r eet at about 60
m. p. h. He swer ved ar ound a dr i ver i n t he nor t hbound l ane,
ent er ed t he sout hbound l ane, and bar r el l ed head- on t owar d a
vehi cl e dr i ven by a mot or i st who had t o wr ench hi s car t o one
si de t o avoi d a col l i si on. That dr i ver , st oppi ng t o r ecover
hi msel f , wat ched i n hi s si de- vi ew mi r r or as def endant cont i nued
i n t he wr ong l ane and r an anot her r ed l i ght at t he I ndi a St r eet
i nt er sect i on, swer vi ng bet ween st opped car s wai t i ng f or t he
l i ght .
1
Al t hough Of f i cer Tr ugl i o t est i f i ed t hat def endant swer ved
away f r omt hi s pedest r i an at t he same t i me as she t ook evasi ve
measur es, Li eut enant Roy, si t t i ng i n t he f r ont passenger seat ,
di d not see def endant swer ve, and i t appear s t hat t he woman
escaped because of her at hl et i c evasi ve act i on. I n any case,
def endant di d not do what a per son di spl ayi ng t he most mi ni mal
degr ee of car e woul d have done, t hat i s br ake.
- 2 -
- 3 - No. 135
I t was at t hi s i nt er sect i on, Manhat t an Avenue and I ndi a
St r eet , t hat def endant st r uck a pedest r i an, Vi ol et Kr yzak, 37,
ki l l i ng her . Kr yzak was cr ossi ng Manhat t an Avenue, wi t h t he
pedest r i an l i ght i n her f avor . Her body f l ew i nt o t he ai r upon
i mpact and l anded over 165 f eet , or al most one bl ock, away f r om
t he poi nt of col l i si on. A wi t ness who saw t he moment of i mpact
est i mat ed t hat def endant was dr i vi ng at 70 m. p. h. , whi l e anot her
byst ander t hought hi s speed was cl oser t o 80 m. p. h. I t i s cl ear
f r omt he t est i mony t hat def endant f i r st swer ved f r omt he
nor t hbound t o t he sout hbound l ane, t o get ar ound nor t hbound
vehi cl es st opped f or t he t r af f i c l i ght , and t hen i mmedi at el y
swer ved back i nt o t he nor t hbound l ane, so as not t o col l i de wi t h
st opped t r af f i c st r ai ght ahead i n t he sout hbound l ane. At t hi s
poi nt , he sl ammed i nt o Mr s. Kr yzak.
2

Of f i cer Tr ugl i o and hi s col l eagues i mmedi at el y st opped
i n or der t o at t end t o Kr yzak. Def endant , however , di d not br ake,
i nst ead speedi ng away at what anot her byst ander descr i bed as
hi ghway- t ype speed, st i l l speedi ng nor t h i n t he sout hbound l ane.
At t he Dupont St r eet i nt er sect i on, f i ve bl ocks t o t he nor t h, t he
dr i ver of a pi ckup t r uck saw def endant headi ng t owar ds hi mat
what he est i mat ed t o be as much as 70 m. p. h. The wi ndshi el d of
def endant ' s vehi cl e was caved i n on t he passenger si de. The
t r uck dr i ver swer ved, t owar ds ot her oncomi ng t r af f i c, t o avoi d a
2
Def endant t ol d t he pol i ce he " t r i ed t o swer ve" when he saw
Kr yzak, but no wi t ness obser ved any evasi ve measur e.
- 3 -
- 4 - No. 135
col l i si on wi t h t he mi ni van, whi ch f i nal l y cr ashed i nt o par ked
vehi cl es.
Def endant j umped out and st ar t ed r unni ng al ong Dupont
St r eet , pur sued by ci vi l i ans. Event ual l y a pol i ce of f i cer t ook
hi mi nt o cust ody. Def endant wai ved hi s Mi r anda r i ght s and made
st at ement s t o t he pol i ce.
Ther e i s no di sput e as t o t he st andar d i n t hi s post -
Fei ngol d case. " [ T] he deci si ve quest i on i s whet her def endant
act ed wi t h t he st at e of mi nd r equi r ed by t he depr aved
i ndi f f er ence mur der st at ut e an ut t er di sr egar d f or t he val ue of
human l i f e" ( Peopl e v Tayl or , 15 NY3d 518, 523 [ 2010] [ ci t at i on
and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed] ) . To be gui l t y of depr aved
i ndi f f er ence, a def endant must have a mens rea t hat i s mor e t han
si mpl y a wi l l i ngness t o t ake t he r i sk t hat a per son wi l l di e as a
r esul t of hi s act i ons ( see Peopl e v Lewi e, 17 NY3d 348, 359
[ 2011] ) . A def endant who i s wi l l i ng t o t ake t he r i sk t hat
someone wi l l di e but r emai ns f ear f ul of t hat possi bl e r esul t i s
not gui l t y of depr aved i ndi f f er ence mur der ( see i d. ) . On t he
ot her hand, someone whose st at e of mi nd i s ent i r el y i ndi f f er ent
and uncar i ng a def endant who does not car e whet her anot her
per son i s ki l l ed or gr i evousl y i nj ur ed as a r esul t of hi s act i ons
( see Peopl e v Bar boni , 21 NY3d 393, 400 [ 2013] ; Peopl e v
Fei ngol d, 7 NY3d 288, 296 [ 2006] ) has t he r equi si t e mens rea.
Consequent l y, t he quest i on her e i s whet her t he Peopl e
pr oved t hat def endant Mal donado had such a st at e of mi nd of not
- 4 -
- 5 - No. 135
car i ng whet her a pedest r i an di ed or was gr i evousl y i nj ur ed as a
r esul t of hi s r eckl ess dr i vi ng. I n my vi ew, i t i s cl ear t hat t he
pr oof of depr aved i ndi f f er ence was suf f i ci ent . Not abl y, t her e
was no evi dence t hat def endant sl owed down at i nt er sect i ons; and,
most not abl y, def endant di d not st op dr i vi ng t hr ough r ed l i ght s
or agai nst t he f l ow of t r af f i c, or ot her wi se adj ust hi s r eckl ess
dr i vi ng behavi or , af t er al most hi t t i ng t he f i r st pedest r i an. I n
ot her wor ds, t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat def endant , t hough
r eckl ess, r emai ned t o some ext ent f ear f ul f or ot her s' saf et y
( cont r a Lewi e, 17 NY3d at 359) .
Def endant cont ends t hat hi s act i ons of swer vi ng i n and
out of t r af f i c, i ncl udi ng swer vi ng t o avoi d an oncomi ng car j ust
bef or e he f at al l y st r uck Kr yzak, demonst r at e t hat he t ook some
car e t o avoi d a f at al col l i si on. I st r ongl y di sagr ee. Swer vi ng
i n and out of t r af f i c, i ncl udi ng t he maneuver s pr ecedi ng t he
f at al i mpact , mer el y demonst r at es def endant ' s desi r e t o avoi d
appr ehensi on, not t o avoi d pedest r i ans. To t he ext ent i t
i ndi cat es avoi dance of ot her vehi cl es, i t si mpl y shows t hat he
was not sui ci dal .
Dur i ng t he hi gh- speed car chase, def endant dr ove at
speeds gr eat l y exceedi ng t he speed l i mi t , t hr ough r ed l i ght s and
i n t he pat h of oncomi ng t r af f i c, t o avoi d pol i ce pur sui t ; he
nar r owl y mi ssed one pedest r i an bef or e st r i ki ng and ki l l i ng
anot her ; and he r ef used t o change hi s dr i vi ng behavi or i n t he
f ace of t hi s encount er , when he had t he oppor t uni t y t o di spl ay
- 5 -
- 6 - No. 135
t hat he car ed whet her or not he mi ght st r i ke a pedest r i an.
Vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he
pr osecut i on, as we must , t her e i s a val i d l i ne of r easoni ng and
per mi ssi bl e i nf er ences f r omwhi ch a r at i onal j ur y t he j ur y i n
t hi s t r i al coul d have f ound t hat def endant ' s st at e of mi nd was
not ext r eme r eckl essness al one, but al so ut t er i ndi f f er ence t o
t he val ue of human l i f e t hat he si mpl y di d not car e whet her or
not a pedest r i an di ed.
Ther ef or e, I woul d af f i r mt he unani mous or der of t he
Appel l at e Di vi si on, hol di ng t hat t he evi dence of def endant ' s
gui l t of mur der i n t he second degr ee was l egal l y suf f i ci ent .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Or der modi f i ed by r educi ng def endant ' s convi ct i on of mur der i n
t he second degr ee t o mansl aught er i n t he second degr ee and
r emi t t i ng t o Supr eme Cour t , Ki ngs Count y, f or r esent enci ng and,
as so modi f i ed, af f i r med. Opi ni on by J udge Ri ver a. Chi ef J udge
Li ppman and J udges Read, Smi t h and Abdus- Sal aamconcur . J udge
Pi got t di ssent s i n an opi ni on i n whi ch J udge Gr af f eo concur s.
Deci ded J ul y 1, 2014
- 6 -