People v. Decina

New York Court of Appeals · 1956 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawCulpable negligencePhysician-patient privilegesection 1053-a Penal Lawculpable negligenceepilepsyknowledge of riskconscious undertaking to drive

Facts

Defendant, driving alone on a Buffalo street, swerved across lanes, mounted the curb, struck a group of schoolgirls, killing four, and then continued into a store. At the hospital, defendant told Dr. Wechter that he had felt warning jerks in his hand, became unconscious, thought he had a convulsion, and had a long history of seizures and prior generalized attacks with loss of consciousness. Dr. Wechter saw defendant as part of his routine hospital duties, took his medical history, made a diagnosis of Jacksonian epilepsy, and other hospital staff treated defendant during his stay. A police guard remained in or near the doorway during the conversation pursuant to police instructions.

Issue

Did the indictment state a crime under Penal Law section 1053-a by alleging that defendant knowingly drove despite awareness that he was subject to epileptic attacks likely to cause loss of consciousness? Also, were defendant's statements to Dr. Wechter protected by the physician-patient privilege despite the presence of a police guard nearby?

Rule

An indictment under Penal Law section 1053-a is sufficient where it alleges that a defendant, knowing he is subject to attacks rendering him likely to lose consciousness, consciously undertakes to drive and deaths result; such conduct may constitute culpable negligence because it manifests disregard of the consequences and indifference to the rights of others. 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 presence of a third person does not necessarily destroy the privilege, and the true test is whether, under all the circumstances and particularly the reason for the third person's presence, 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, Nina Carver has a diagnosed neurological condition that has caused several prior episodes of sudden loss of consciousness. Her doctors told her the episodes can occur without much warning, but she chooses to drive alone to work anyway. During the trip, she blacks out, her car crosses onto a sidewalk, and a pedestrian dies.

If Nina is charged with criminal homicide under a statute punishing deaths caused by culpably negligent operation of a vehicle, what is the strongest basis for upholding the charge?

Explanation. The governing rule is that culpable negligence may be based on the defendant's earlier conscious decision to drive despite knowledge of a condition likely to cause loss of consciousness. The critical wrongful act is not the later involuntary driving while unconscious, but the prior knowing undertaking to operate a dangerous instrumentality on a public highway in disregard of foreseeable consequences.