People v. Fenner, 61 N.Y.2d 971 (1984)

Evidence of multiple shots fired at a group of people running away is sufficient to present a question for the jury as to whether the defendant evinced a depraved indifference to human life.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the defendant’s conviction for depraved indifference murder. The court held that the evidence presented—the number of shots fired, the number of people targeted, and their attempts to flee—sufficiently established a question for the jury regarding the defendant’s depraved indifference to human life. The court also found that the jury was properly charged on the definition of “depraved indifference”. An argument concerning the reliability of information from a citizen informant was deemed unpreserved for review.

Facts

The defendant fired multiple shots at a group of people who were running towards the door of a poolroom, attempting to escape from him. The defendant was subsequently charged and convicted of depraved indifference murder.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish a question for the jury concerning whether the defendant evinced a depraved indifference to human life.

2. Whether the argument that the defendant’s statements should have been suppressed due to the unestablished reliability of a citizen informant was preserved for review.

Holding

1. Yes, because the number of shots fired, the number of persons fired at, and the fact that they were running away were sufficient to present a question for the jury concerning whether the defendant evinced “a depraved indifference to human life”.

2. No, because the issue of reliability was not properly raised in the defendant’s motion papers or during the hearing.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the circumstances of the shooting, while perhaps not as egregious as in other cases (e.g., People v. Register), were sufficient to allow a jury to determine whether the defendant demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life. The court emphasized that the jury was instructed to find the defendant’s conduct “beyond being reckless * * * so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes the death of another.” The court emphasized that because there was enough evidence, and the jury was properly instructed, the conviction had to stand.

Regarding the defendant’s argument about suppressing his statements, the court found it unpreserved because the reliability of the citizen informant was not properly challenged in the initial motion or during the hearing. The court cited People v. Weston and People v. Jenkins to support its position that a peripheral reference during argument is insufficient to preserve an issue for review.