People v. Russell
670 N.Y.S.2d 166, 91 N.Y.2d 280, 693 N.E.2d 193 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Adversaries who voluntarily and mutually engage in a gun battle in a public place may be held criminally liable as accomplices for the depraved indifference murder of a bystander, regardless of which participant fired the fatal shot, because their shared purpose was the illegal combat itself.
Facts:
- On December 17, 1992, Shamel Burroughs encountered his adversaries, Jermaine Russell and Khary Bekka, on a public mall at the Red Hook Housing Project in Brooklyn.
- Recognizing the impending danger, Burroughs instructed his two companions to run, but he himself did not retreat.
- Burroughs, Russell, and Bekka, all armed with automatic weapons, tacitly agreed to a confrontation and began walking toward one another.
- The three men engaged in a gun battle, firing between nine and twenty shots at each other across the pedestrian thoroughfare, which was occupied by other people.
- During the exchange of gunfire, Patrick Daly, a school principal, was struck and killed by a single stray bullet.
- Ballistics testing was inconclusive and could not determine which of the three defendants fired the bullet that killed Daly.
Procedural Posture:
- Shamel Burroughs, Jermaine Russell, and Khary Bekka were charged with second-degree murder.
- The defendants were tried in a state trial court before two separate, contemporaneously impaneled juries.
- Both juries convicted all three defendants of second-degree depraved indifference murder.
- Defendants appealed their convictions to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed all three convictions.
- The defendants were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals 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 the evidence support a conviction for depraved indifference murder under a theory of accomplice liability for all participants in a mutual gun battle when their combat results in the death of an innocent bystander, even if it is unknown which combatant fired the fatal shot?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Kaye
Yes. The evidence supports the convictions because adversaries in a gun battle can be held liable as accomplices for the depraved indifference murder of a bystander. The court reasoned that the 'community of purpose' required for accomplice liability was not an agreement to kill the bystander, but rather the tacit agreement to engage in the mutual combat that created the zone of danger. By voluntarily participating in a deadly gunfight on a public thoroughfare and foregoing opportunities to retreat, each defendant intentionally aided the others in the reckless, depraved conduct that foreseeably resulted in the death of an innocent person. The court found this analogous to a drag race where both competitors are held liable for a resulting fatal crash, as each participant's conduct made the dangerous event possible.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the concept of accomplice liability by establishing that a 'community of purpose' can exist between adversaries. It allows for murder convictions of all participants in mutual combat, such as a gang shootout, when a bystander is killed, without requiring the prosecution to prove who fired the fatal shot. This precedent is critical for addressing urban violence where the specific triggerman is often unknown, ensuring that all who contribute to the lethal environment can be held responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Russell