People v Gaworecki
2021 NY Slip Op 05392
Contact a Criminal Appeals Lawyer: Call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)
Issue:
Did Defendant Have the Mens Rea Required to Sustain the Charges
Whether defendant Gaworecki had the requisite mens rea to be charged with either manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15[1]) or the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 15.05) when he sold a batch of heroin that caused an overdose.
Holding:
Prima Facie Proof Insufficient to Support Indictment
The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case that defendant acted either with the recklessness required to sustain the charge of second-degree manslaughter or the criminal negligence required for criminally negligent homicide charge.
Facts:
The evidence presented established that defendant Gaworecki sold five blue bags of heroin that resulted in an overdose. Shortly after the sale, defendant texted the decedent to “be careful.” Shortly after, the decedent and his girlfriend consumed some of the heroin, and the girlfriend said it was “really strong and potent.” One day later, police were called to the decedent’s home where he was found dead from acute heroin toxicity. The toxicology report showed that in addition to opiates, the decedent had codeine and benzodiazepines in his system. The coroner testified that although the other drugs were in his system, their presence did not change the cause of his death.
Residue from one of the empty blue bags tested positive for heroin and fentanyl, while another blue bag tested positive only for heroin. No evidence connected defendant to empty green baggies also found in the decedent’s bedroom, and there was no proof that defendant was the decedent’s only heroin supplier. Defendant was indicted on charges of manslaughter in the second degree, with instructions for the grand jury to consider criminally negligent homicide separately. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient. County Court granted defendant’s motion in part, dismissing the count of the indictment charging defendant with manslaughter in the second degree. On the People’s appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and denied defendant’s motion in its entirety, with two justices dissenting, one of which granted leave to appeal.
Analysis:
Prima Facie Proof Means Competent Evidence That Establishes Every Element of the Charge
To dismiss an indictment on the basis of insufficient evidence, a Court must consider whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant conviction by a petit jury (People v Grant, 17 NY3d 613, 616 [2011]). Legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is defined as “competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of the offense charged.” [CPL 70.10].
As to manslaughter in the second degree, the People were required to present competent evidence establishing that defendant “recklessly caused the death” of the decedent. Recklessly in this context means that defendant “is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result.” (Penal Law § 15.05 [3]). As to criminally negligent homicide, the People must demonstrate that defendant, acting with “criminal negligence,” caused the decedent’s death. Criminal negligence in this context means “fail[ing] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that death will result. Both recklessness and criminal negligence require a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and that the defendant’s conduct be a “gross deviation from how a reasonable person would act” (People v Asaro, 21 NY3d 677, 684 [2013]). The Court has held that “the ‘nonperception’ of a risk, even if death results, is not enough.” Rather, a defendant must have “engaged in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” (People v Boutin, 75 NY2d 692, 696 [1990]).
Knowing Heroin was Strong Does Not Equate to ‘Substantial and Unjustifiable Risk of Death’
The Court of Appeals held that the evidence presented to the grand jury in this case failed to establish a prima facie case for either charge. Knowing that the heroin was strong and required caution does not equate to a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would result from its use. Indeed, there was testimonial evidence from the coroner and other heroin users that it is common knowledge among users that different samples or preparations of heroin vary in potency and strength. The People also presented insufficient evidence that defendant was aware of, or that he failed to perceive, a substantial or unjustifiable risk of death when he sold the decedent the heroin. Defendant also sold the same samples of heroin to other users who survived those incidents. The People failed to provide any evidence of defendant’s awareness of any real threat to the decedent’s life “beyond the general knowledge of the injuriousness of drug-taking” (People v Cruciani, 36 NY2d 304 [1975]). Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the motion to dismiss the count in the indictment charging him with manslaughter in the second degree was granted.