People v. Decina

New York Court of Appeals · 1956 · Criminal Law

2 N.Y.2d 133 (1956)

Updated July 19, 2026

Criminal Lawcriminal negligencephysician-patient privilegeculpable negligencevehicular homicideepilepsyvoluntary actknowledge of risk

Facts

Defendant drove alone on a Buffalo street, his car swerved across lanes, mounted the curb, struck a group of schoolgirls, killing four, and then continued until crashing into a grocery store. At the hospital, Dr. Wechter, a resident physician on the staff, questioned defendant as part of his routine duties, without telling him he was acting for police or prosecutors, and defendant described his seizure history and stated that while driving he felt warning signs of a convulsion and became unconscious. Dr. Wechter testified that defendant was a patient, that he took defendant's medical history, and that such information led to a diagnosis of Jacksonian epilepsy. This testimony was the only evidence showing defendant had epilepsy, had a seizure at the time of the accident, and knew of his susceptibility to such attacks.

Issue

Did the indictment sufficiently charge criminal negligence under Penal Law section 1053-a by alleging that defendant knowingly drove despite awareness that he was subject to epileptic attacks? Separately, were defendant's statements to the hospital physician protected by physician-patient privilege despite the presence of a police guard nearby?

Rule

Under Penal Law section 1053-a, culpable negligence is sufficiently alleged where a defendant, knowing he is subject to epileptic attacks or seizures that may strike at any time, consciously undertakes to drive and thereby disregards consequences he knows may follow from that conscious act. Under Civil Practice Act section 352, a physician may not disclose information acquired while attending a patient in a professional capacity and necessary to enable the physician to act in that capacity; the privilege applies when the patient is led reasonably to accept the doctor as acting professionally, and the presence of a third person does not defeat the privilege if, in light of all the circumstances, the communication was intended to be confidential.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Rochester, Nora Kim had experienced repeated seizure episodes over the past year, including several that caused brief loss of consciousness without warning. Knowing this, she chose to drive alone across town to pick up groceries, blacked out at an intersection, and her car struck a cyclist who died.

If Nora is charged under a statute punishing culpably negligent operation of a vehicle resulting in death, which argument most strongly supports the charge?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the relevant culpable act is the conscious choice to drive while knowing of a condition likely to cause loss of consciousness, not the later unconscious driving itself. A defendant need not intend death, and liability does not depend on prior traffic convictions.