People v. Cabrera
858 N.Y.S.2d 74, 10 N.Y.3d 370, 887 N.E.2d 1132 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for criminally negligent homicide arising from a vehicular accident, the evidence must show more than just excessive speed; it requires proof of an additional, morally blameworthy, risk-creating act. Violations of junior license restrictions, without more, are insufficient to supply the requisite mental state of criminal negligence.
Facts:
- Brett Cabrera, a 17-year-old with a junior 'class DJ' driver's license, was driving his parents' SUV with four teenage passengers.
- The four passengers were not members of Cabrera's immediate family, and none were wearing seat belts, which violated the conditions of his junior license.
- While driving on Sackett Lake Road, which had a posted speed limit of 55 mph, Cabrera approached a downhill curve preceded by a '40 mph curve' warning sign.
- Cabrera's vehicle was traveling at approximately 70-72 miles per hour as it entered the curve.
- The vehicle entered a 'critical speed yaw,' spinning out of control and partially crossing the double yellow line before leaving the roadway.
- The SUV went down a 25-to-30-foot embankment, striking a utility pole and a tree.
- The resulting crash killed three of the passengers and critically injured the fourth.
- A toxicology test showed that Cabrera was free of drugs and alcohol at the time of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The People of the State of New York charged Brett Cabrera with three counts of criminally negligent homicide and one count of assault in the third degree, among other offenses.
- Following a trial in Sullivan County Court, a jury convicted Cabrera on all counts.
- Cabrera appealed the conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department, which is an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction in a 3-2 decision.
- A dissenting justice from the Appellate Division granted Cabrera leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a young, inexperienced, and sober driver's conduct of excessively speeding into a dangerous curve, combined with violations of junior license restrictions, constitute legally sufficient evidence of criminal negligence to support a conviction for criminally negligent homicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Read
No. The defendant's conduct did not constitute criminal negligence. To elevate ordinary negligence to criminal negligence in a vehicular homicide case, the defendant must have engaged in some blameworthy, risk-creating conduct beyond just excessive speed, such as intoxication, drag racing, or running red lights. Here, Cabrera's actions, while tragically negligent, represented a noncriminal failure to perceive risk due to his youth and inexperience, rather than the kind of morally blameworthy conduct required for a homicide conviction. The junior license violations did not cause or contribute to the risk of the crash itself and thus cannot supply the necessary element of criminal culpability.
Dissenting - Judge Graffeo
Yes. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction for criminal negligence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant engaged in blameworthy conduct beyond mere speeding. Expert testimony suggested that by traveling 70-72 mph and crossing the double yellow line before the curve without braking, Cabrera was attempting to 'flatten out the curve' in a race car-style stunt. This culpable, risk-creating conduct, combined with his disregard for the safety restrictions of his junior license, provided ample evidence for a rational jury to find him guilty of criminally negligent homicide.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for establishing criminal negligence in New York, particularly in vehicular homicide cases involving inexperienced but sober drivers. The court drew a sharp distinction between a tragic 'nonperception of risk' (civil negligence) and affirmative, 'morally blameworthy risk-creation' (criminal negligence). By concluding that speeding, even at a very high rate, combined with statutory violations like those of a junior license, is insufficient without more, the ruling makes it more difficult for prosecutors to secure homicide convictions in cases that lack aggravating factors like intoxication or racing. The case underscores that a fatal outcome does not automatically transform a negligent act into a criminal one.
