People v. Boutin, 75 N.Y.2d 692 (1990)

Criminally negligent homicide requires not only a failure to perceive a risk of death, but also some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that caused it; a mere failure to perceive a risk, without underlying culpable conduct, is insufficient for a conviction.

Summary

Boutin was convicted of criminally negligent homicide after his truck collided with a police car stopped on the interstate, resulting in two deaths. The prosecution argued that Boutin’s failure to see the flashing emergency lights constituted criminal negligence. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence only proved Boutin’s failure to perceive the risk, not any blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to that risk. The court emphasized that criminal negligence requires a gross deviation from reasonable care and some culpable risk creation, not just an unexplained failure to perceive danger.

Facts

On a dark, rainy night, Boutin was driving his truck on Interstate 87. A marked police car with flashing lights was stopped in the right-hand lane behind a disabled tractor-trailer. Boutin’s truck collided with the police car, killing the State Trooper and the driver of the disabled vehicle. Boutin stated at the scene that he did not see the flashing lights. The passenger in Boutin’s truck confirmed this at trial. The prosecution’s expert testified that Boutin did not apply the brakes before the collision and was traveling between 60 and 65 mph. Boutin’s passenger testified that the truck’s speed was between 40 and 50 mph and that Boutin applied the brakes approximately 200 feet before impact, after neither of them had seen the police car.

Procedural History

Boutin was convicted of two counts of criminally negligent homicide in County Court, and his motion to set aside the verdict was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding no excuse for Boutin’s failure to observe the emergency lights. Boutin appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the unexplained failure of a driver to see a vehicle and its flashing lights ahead, resulting in a fatal collision, is sufficient to establish criminally negligent homicide under New York Penal Law § 125.10 and § 15.05(4), absent evidence of other culpable, risk-creating conduct.

Holding

No, because criminally negligent homicide requires not only a failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but also some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that caused the death, and Boutin’s unexplained failure to see the vehicle ahead, without more, does not satisfy this standard.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that criminal negligence requires a gross deviation from the standard of care and that the carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong. The court distinguished this case from others where convictions for criminally negligent homicide were upheld, noting that in those cases, the defendants had engaged in additional blameworthy conduct, such as speeding, racing, or disobeying traffic signals. As the court stated, “criminally negligent homicide requires not only a failure to perceive a risk of death, but also some serious blameworthiness in the conduct that caused it.” In this case, the court found that the evidence only showed Boutin’s unexplained failure to see the vehicle ahead, which, while potentially civil negligence, did not rise to the level of criminal negligence. The court highlighted that “unless a defendant has engaged in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, he has not committed the crime of criminally negligent homicide; his ‘nonperception’ of a risk, even if death results, is not enough.” The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the indictment.