People v. Fitzgerald, 45 N.Y.2d 574 (1978): Sufficiency of Factual Allegations in Indictment for Criminally Negligent Homicide

People v. Fitzgerald, 45 N.Y.2d 574 (1978)

An indictment charging criminally negligent homicide or assault must contain factual allegations supporting the element of criminal negligence, but these facts can be provided in a bill of particulars if not fully detailed in the indictment itself.

Summary

Defendant was indicted for criminally negligent homicide and assault after hitting two teenage girls with his car, resulting in one death and one severe injury. The indictment stated the defendant caused the death and injury through criminal negligence while operating his vehicle. The defendant argued the indictment lacked sufficient factual detail regarding the alleged criminal negligence. The New York Court of Appeals held that while the indictment must assert facts supporting every element of the offense, including criminal negligence, a bill of particulars can provide the necessary details if the indictment itself is not sufficiently specific, ensuring the defendant is adequately informed to prepare a defense.

Facts

On December 22, 1975, two teenage girls were struck by a hit-and-run driver in Westchester County. Cara Pollini died from a broken neck, and Susan Bassett was severely injured. Several days later, the defendant surrendered himself and his car to the police. A grand jury indicted the defendant on four counts: criminally negligent homicide, third-degree assault, and two counts of leaving the scene of an accident.

Procedural History

The defendant moved to dismiss the first two counts (criminally negligent homicide and assault) for failing to comply with CPL 200.50(7), arguing they lacked factual indication of acts constituting criminal negligence. The trial court dismissed these counts, citing insufficient evidence and inadequate factual allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed solely on the grounds of insufficient factual allegations. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an indictment charging criminally negligent homicide and third-degree assault is sufficient under CPL 200.50(7) when it alleges criminal negligence in the language of the statute, without specifying the underlying facts constituting the negligence, provided a bill of particulars is available to supply those facts.

Holding

Yes, because while an indictment must contain a factual statement supporting every element of the offense, the required details concerning the conduct constituting criminal negligence can be provided in a bill of particulars, ensuring the defendant is adequately informed to prepare a defense.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that criminal negligence, unlike intent, encompasses both a culpable mental state and underlying conduct involving a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and a gross deviation from reasonable care. While the mental element may generally be alleged in the words of the statute, the underlying conduct creating the risk varies and may involve complex circumstances. CPL 200.50(7) requires a plain and concise factual statement supporting every element of the offense. However, a complete itemization of all circumstances in the indictment could be overly complex. The court emphasized the defendant’s right to be informed of the conduct forming the basis of the accusation to prepare a defense. The court noted: “Thus a person accused of causing death or injury by acting with ‘criminal negligence’ is entitled to know specifically what conduct on his part involved a ‘substantial and unjustifiable risk’ of death or injury and ‘a gross deviation’ from the standard of reasonable care (Penal Law, § 15.05, subd 4).” The availability of a bill of particulars to provide these details ensures adequate notice to the defendant. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the matter for consideration of the sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence.