You are here: / / THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CHANGED WHEN THE...
, ,

THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CHANGED WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED PEOPLE V PAYNE, BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HEARD DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION AND SHOULD HAVE REVERSED THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AND DISMISSED THE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the law on the proof requirements for depraved indifference murder changed when People v Payne (3 NY2d 266) was decided, not later when People v Feingold (7 NY3d 288) was decided; (2) defendant’s judgment of conviction did not become final until after People v Payne was decided; (3) therefore defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction should have been heard on the merits; and (4) the evidence of depraved indifference murder was not sufficient to support the verdict:

As noted, the motion court determined that the law regarding depraved indifference murder did not change until People v Feingold, and that the defendant is therefore not entitled to any benefit under the new law … . However, in People v Wilkens (126 AD3d 1293) and People v Baptiste (51 AD3d 184), the [3rd] and [4th] Departments of the Appellate Division each held that the law changed on October 19, 2004, when the Court of Appeals decided People v Payne. We agree with the [3rd] and [4th] Departments that People v Payne signaled the change in the law of depraved indifference murder. …

Under the unique circumstances of this case, where the cases here relied upon … had not yet been decided at the time that the direct appeal was perfected, we find that the failure to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal was justified. …

… [T]he trial evidence was not legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt of depraved indifference murder … . People v Hernandez, 2018 NY Slip Op 08690, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD BASED ON SEVERAL TYPES OF SEXUAL TOUCHING, BUT NOT KISSING, THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER KISSING, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, I.E. SNOW PILED AT AN INTERSECTION, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INTERSECTION COLLISION WAS CAUSED BY THE INABILITY TO SEE BECAUSE OF THE PILE OF SNOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR’S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANT DRIVER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE.
COURT’S ERRORS IN DEALING WITH NOTES FROM THE JURY, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE WORD ‘INITIALLY’ FOR ‘INTENTIONALLY,’ REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FATHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON... FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING FUTURE PARENTAL ACCESS PETITIONS...