People v. Lewie
953 N.E.2d 760, 929 N.Y.S.2d 522, 17 N.Y.3d 348 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant acts recklessly when they are aware of and consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. However, to act with depraved indifference, a defendant must possess a state of mind worse than recklessness, characterized by an utter disregard for the value of human life where one simply does not care about the outcome.
Facts:
- Alicia Lewie and her eight-month-old son, Colbi Bullock, lived with Michael Flint.
- Over a 45-day period, Lewie repeatedly left Colbi in Flint's unsupervised care while she worked.
- During this time, Lewie knew or believed Flint was physically abusing Colbi, having seen bruises and been told by Flint that he had shaken and bitten the baby.
- Lewie expressed fear about leaving Colbi with Flint and once instructed Flint to "shake the teddy bear instead of Colbi" if he became angry.
- Lewie knew Flint had a history of violence, including physically abusing her and killing a kitten.
- Two days before Colbi's death, Lewie came home to find Colbi with two black eyes and bruises on his face, torso, and neck, which Flint attributed to a fall in the shower. Lewie did not seek medical care.
- The next day, Lewie concealed Colbi's injuries with a snowsuit and lied to a witness about having taken him to the hospital, before leaving him with Flint for a final time.
- Lewie and Flint later brought Colbi to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead from a brain injury inflicted by Flint.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Alicia Lewie was charged in a New York trial court with second-degree manslaughter (two counts), first-degree reckless endangerment, and endangering the welfare of a child.
- A jury in the trial court convicted Lewie on all four counts.
- Lewie, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed one of the manslaughter convictions but affirmed the convictions for the second manslaughter count, reckless endangerment, and endangering the welfare of a child.
- Lewie, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court, to challenge the remaining convictions.
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 mother's conduct of repeatedly leaving her child in the care of a man she knows is abusive constitute both recklessness sufficient for a second-degree manslaughter conviction and depraved indifference to human life sufficient for a first-degree reckless endangerment conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No, the evidence supports a finding of recklessness for the manslaughter conviction but does not support a finding of depraved indifference for the reckless endangerment conviction. To be guilty of reckless manslaughter, a defendant must be aware of and consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. The evidence here—that Lewie knew Flint was violent, was abusing her child, and was told to shake a toy instead of the baby—was sufficient for a jury to find she was aware of a risk to her child's life and consciously disregarded it. However, depraved indifference requires a more culpable mental state of utter disregard for human life, where one 'simply doesn’t care whether grievous harm results or not.' Lewie’s conduct, while reckless, did not rise to this level. Her expressions of fear, her worry, and her weak attempt to protect the child by suggesting he shake a teddy bear all show she was not indifferent to whether her child lived or died; she cared, albeit far too little.
Dissenting - Jones, J.
No, the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction for manslaughter. The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lewie was aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of her son's death, as distinct from a risk of physical abuse. The fatal injuries were internal and not externally detectable, and there was no proof Lewie knew the abuse had become life-threatening. The majority improperly equates knowledge of physical abuse with knowledge of a risk of death, thereby lowering the stringent causation requirement for reckless manslaughter in cases involving a passive defendant. Her actions in the final days, including trying to treat the child and eventually taking him to the hospital, belie the claim that she would have consciously disregarded a known risk to his life.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical clarification of the distinction between the mens rea of recklessness and that of depraved indifference under New York law. By overturning the reckless endangerment conviction while upholding the manslaughter conviction, the court emphasized that 'depraved indifference' is a rare and exceptionally culpable mental state requiring a literal and complete lack of concern for the outcome, not just a gross deviation from the standard of care. This decision makes it more difficult for prosecutors to secure convictions for depraved indifference crimes against 'passive' actors, such as a parent who fails to protect a child, by showing that evidence of fear, worry, or even feeble protective efforts can negate the element of indifference. The ruling reinforces that depraved indifference is qualitatively different from, and more blameworthy than, recklessness.
