Yes. The court decided that Decina's crime was not crashing the car while he was unconscious—he couldn't control that part. His crime was making the choice to get behind the wheel in the first place, because he knew he had a condition that could make him a danger to others. He consciously took a huge risk. The court also said that the conversation Decina had with his doctor was private and protected. The doctor was there to diagnose and treat him, so what Decina said couldn't be used against him in court, even though a police officer was standing nearby and could hear them.

No. A dissenting judge disagreed about the crime part. He argued that the law punishes people for *how* they drive (recklessly), and you can't be 'reckless' if you are unconscious. He believed the court was creating a new crime for 'driving while having a medical condition,' which the law wasn't written for. He worried this would be unfair to many people who have illnesses but are still licensed to drive. While he agreed the doctor's testimony should not have been allowed, he thought the whole case should have been thrown out from the start.

Yes, Decina is responsible. He knew that he could have a seizure and lose control while driving, which is very dangerous. He decided to drive anyway, and that choice led to a terrible accident. This is why he's considered to have been recklessly negligent. If we let people drive when they know they might pass out, it would put everyone at risk.

I agree Decina's conviction was wrong, but I think he should never have been charged with a crime at all. The charges say Decina's car was out of control because he had a seizure and passed out. But you can't be 'reckless' or 'negligent' when you're unconscious, because those words mean you're aware of the risks. The law is meant to punish people who drive carelessly on purpose, not people who have accidents because of medical emergencies they can't control.

No, Decina should not be held responsible. I agree Decina's conviction was wrong, but I think he should never have been charged with a crime at all. The charges say Decina's car was out of control because he had a seizure and passed out. But you can't be 'reckless' or 'negligent' when you're unconscious, because those words mean you're aware of the risks. The law is meant to punish people who drive carelessly on purpose, not people who have accidents because of medical emergencies they can't control.

Yes. A person who consciously undertakes to operate a motor vehicle with knowledge of a condition that could cause a sudden loss of control demonstrates a disregard for the consequences that amounts to culpable negligence. The culpability is not in the involuntary actions during the seizure, but in the conscious and deliberate choice to drive despite the known, foreseeable risk. Furthermore, statements made by the defendant to a hospital physician for purposes of diagnosis and treatment are protected by the physician-patient privilege. A professional relationship existed as the defendant was a patient at the hospital and the doctor examined him in his capacity as a resident physician. The presence of a police guard did not waive the privilege because the test is whether the communication was intended to be confidential, and the statute is to be liberally construed to protect the patient.

No, the indictment does not allege a crime and should be dismissed. The criminal negligence statute punishes the manner of vehicle operation—driving in a reckless or culpably negligent manner—which requires consciousness and volition. The indictment alleges the reckless driving was caused by a loss of consciousness, which is a contradiction; one cannot operate a vehicle in a reckless manner while unconscious. The majority's holding improperly shifts the criminal act from the manner of driving to the decision to drive at all, creating a new, overly broad, and vague crime not intended by the legislature. This interpretation would criminalize driving for countless individuals with medical conditions, violating due process. While concurring with the majority's conclusion that the physician's testimony was inadmissible, the underlying indictment should have been dismissed.

Yes. I hold that Decina was culpably negligent because he consciously chose to operate a vehicle despite knowing his susceptibility to epileptic seizures, which could lead to loss of consciousness and result in uncontrolled, dangerous driving. This conscious disregard for the potential consequences to others on the road constitutes culpable negligence under section 1053-a of the Penal Law. To hold otherwise would allow individuals to recklessly endanger the public by driving while aware of medical conditions that could cause them to lose control at any moment.

I agree the conviction cannot stand but I believe the indictment should be dismissed for failing to allege a crime. The indictment states Decina's car traveled recklessly due to his attack and loss of consciousness. One cannot be 'reckless' or 'culpably negligent' while unconscious, as those require awareness. Section 1053-a penalizes conscious, voluntary operation of a vehicle in a culpably negligent manner. It does not criminalize the involuntary actions of an unconscious driver. The majority's overly broad interpretation would subject anyone with a condition that could cause unconsciousness to criminal liability whenever they drive, an unjust and unconstitutional result.

No. I agree the conviction cannot stand but I believe the indictment should be dismissed for failing to allege a crime. The indictment states Decina's car traveled recklessly due to his attack and loss of consciousness. One cannot be 'reckless' or 'culpably negligent' while unconscious, as those require awareness. Section 1053-a penalizes conscious, voluntary operation of a vehicle in a culpably negligent manner. It does not criminalize the involuntary actions of an unconscious driver. The majority's overly broad interpretation would subject anyone with a condition that could cause unconsciousness to criminal liability whenever they drive, an unjust and unconstitutional result.

People v. Decina

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot