People v. Bauman, 13 N.Y.3d 152 (2009)
An indictment is duplicitous when a single count alleges multiple distinct acts, each of which could constitute a separate offense, making it impossible to determine the specific act upon which the jury reached a unanimous verdict.
Summary
Defendants were charged with one count of intentional assault and one count of depraved indifference assault. The depraved indifference assault count alleged 11 distinct acts occurring over an eight-month period. The New York Court of Appeals held that the depraved indifference assault count was duplicitous because it encompassed multiple offenses within a single count, violating Criminal Procedure Law § 200.30 (1). The court reasoned that the use of “and/or” between each act made it impossible to determine which specific act the jury unanimously agreed upon for conviction, thus threatening the reliability of the verdict. This decision emphasizes the importance of separately charging distinct criminal acts in an indictment to ensure a unanimous jury verdict on each specific offense.
Facts
The indictment against the defendants included two counts: (1) intentional assault for causing injury with various instruments like a baseball bat and (2) depraved indifference assault. The second count alleged the defendants committed 11 different acts over an eight-month period, including striking the victim, burning the victim, and providing inadequate living conditions. Emergency personnel found the victim in a hypothermic condition and near death on April 7, 2005.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss both counts of the indictment, citing duplicity. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an indictment charging depraved indifference assault under Penal Law § 120.10 (3), which alleges 11 acts over an eight-month period in a single count, violates Criminal Procedure Law § 200.30 (1), which prohibits duplicitous counts?
Holding
Yes, because the indictment’s second count, alleging 11 incidents over an eight-month period, encompassed such a multiplicity of acts as to make it virtually impossible to determine the particular act of assault as to which a jury could reach a unanimous verdict.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that CPL 200.30 (1) mandates that each count of an indictment may charge only one offense. The court reasoned that the second count of the indictment, which alleged 11 separate incidents of assault over an eight-month period, was duplicitous because it made it impossible to determine which specific act the jury unanimously agreed upon to convict the defendants. Quoting People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410 (1986), the court stated that an indictment should not encompass “such a multiplicity of acts … as to make it virtually impossible to determine the particular act of [assault] … as to which [a] jury [could] reach[] a unanimous verdict.” The court also noted the People’s use of “and/or” between each act allowed a jury to potentially convict on only one of the alleged acts, which may not be sufficient to establish a course of conduct, and it would be unclear which act the defendants were convicted of. The dissenting opinion argued that the indictment sufficiently alleged that the defendants’ conduct on April 7, 2005, resulted in serious physical injury and a grave risk of death. However, the majority rejected this argument, stating that setting this date would amount to an improper amendment to the indictment.