23 N.Y.3d 1130 (2014)
Depraved indifference, required for reckless endangerment, requires wanton cruelty, brutality, or callousness directed against a particularly vulnerable victim, combined with utter indifference to the victim’s safety; reckless or selfish behavior alone is insufficient.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of reckless endangerment and assault charges against Terrance Williams. Williams had unprotected sex with the victim despite knowing he was HIV positive and falsely reassuring the victim about safety. The court found the prosecution failed to establish depraved indifference, a key element of reckless endangerment. The court reasoned that while Williams’ actions were reckless and selfish, they did not demonstrate the requisite level of wanton cruelty, brutality, or callousness required for depraved indifference. Williams’ later expression of remorse further weakened the argument for depraved indifference. The court declined to address whether HIV infection creates a grave risk of death in light of modern medical treatments.
Facts
Williams and the victim were in a relationship and engaged in unprotected anal sex. Before this occurred, they discussed HIV and the need for safe sex. Williams knew he was HIV positive but told the victim it was safe and took away a condom. The victim tested positive for HIV. Williams later admitted via social media that he had been diagnosed as HIV positive before having unprotected sex with the victim. The victim experienced significant health issues as a result of the infection.
Procedural History
A grand jury indicted Williams on one count of first-degree reckless endangerment and one count of third-degree assault. The trial court reduced the reckless endangerment charge to second-degree and otherwise denied Williams’ motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the evidence before the grand jury was sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with the requisite depraved indifference to human life, as required for a charge of reckless endangerment.
Holding
1. No, because the evidence did not demonstrate wanton cruelty, brutality, or callousness, or utter indifference to the victim’s safety.
Court’s Reasoning
The court focused on the legal definition of