People v. Soe
9 Misc. 3d 1069 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a simplified traffic infraction under the Vehicle and Traffic Law, while specific mental intent (mens rea) is not required, the physical act (actus reus) must be a voluntary bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort or determination.
Facts:
- Robert Soe, while recovering from surgery, was staying with a friend in Valley Stream, New York.
- Three days prior to April 26, 2005, Robert Soe received a prescription for four different medications, including Wellbutrin XL, a drug known for causing blackouts and seizures.
- On April 26, 2005, while driving back to his friend's house from visiting his daughter, Robert Soe began to feel uncomfortable and pulled over to the side of the road to rest.
- Around 8:57 p.m. on April 26, 2005, a police patrolman observed Robert Soe's vehicle traveling through a stop sign at the intersection of Hendrickson and East avenues in Valley Stream, New York.
- Robert Soe claimed he was unaware of going through the stop sign, stating he experienced a 'blackout' or 'seizure' that caused a momentary lack of consciousness.
- Robert Soe was unfamiliar with the area as he was a temporary visitor.
- After the incident, Robert Soe's doctor confirmed that the combination of his prescription drugs could have caused blackouts and/or seizures, and subsequently readjusted his medication, leading to no further complications.
- Robert Soe had maintained a clean driving record for 26 years without any prior tickets.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Soe was issued a simplified traffic infraction for failure to stop at a stop sign under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172.
- Robert Soe filed a motion to dismiss the simplified traffic information in the Justice Court (a court of first instance) in Nassau County, New York.
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 simplified traffic infraction under New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law require proof of specific mental intent (mens rea) and a voluntary act (actus reus) for legal sufficiency?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert G. Bogle, J.
No, a simplified traffic infraction does not require specific mental intent, but it absolutely requires a voluntary act. The court found that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172, under which the defendant was charged, does not require proof of a specific mental state (mens rea). This was determined by examining the statute's silence on intent and interpreting it as an uninterrupted continuation of the substantially identical 1929 Vehicle and Traffic Law, under which prior cases (e.g., People v Baxter, People v Janoske) held that intent was not an element of a traffic infraction. However, the court emphasized that for any criminal liability, including violations, there must be, at minimum, a voluntary act (actus reus), defined as a bodily movement performed consciously as a result of effort or determination (Penal Law § 15.00[2]). The definition of a voluntary act explicitly excludes movements performed during unconsciousness, hypnosis, or similar mental states. In applying this to the facts, the court found sufficient medical evidence and testimony to establish that Robert Soe suffered unforeseen seizures and blackouts, making his action of passing through the stop sign involuntary. Therefore, because his actions were involuntary, the prosecution failed to satisfy the statutory requirements, and the charge was dismissed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between the mens rea (mental intent) and actus reus (voluntary act) requirements for simplified traffic infractions in New York. It affirms that while strict liability often applies to the intent element of traffic offenses, the act itself must still be voluntary. This ruling provides a significant defense for drivers whose actions leading to an infraction are demonstrably involuntary due to unforeseen medical emergencies causing unconsciousness, thereby impacting future cases involving similar medical circumstances affecting driver control.
