## Facts

- Robert David Cook was in a romantic relationship with Kathryn Burns, and they lived together in an apartment.
- On the night of the shooting, Burns returned home later than Cook expected.
- Cook and Burns had been drinking, and both were intoxicated when they began arguing in their bedroom.
- During the argument, Cook retrieved a handgun.
- Cook fired the gun in the bedroom, later claiming he shot toward a pillow on the bed and did not intend to hit Burns.
- The bullet struck Burns and killed her.
- Cook was charged with second-degree murder (on a depraved-heart theory), involuntary manslaughter, and use of a handgun in the commission of a violent crime.
- The trial judge instructed that depraved-heart murder required conduct creating a *very high* risk to life and, though aware of the risk, acting with *extreme disregard* of the consequences; involuntary manslaughter required *gross negligence* creating a *high* risk to life.
- The jury found Cook guilty as charged, and Cook appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury instructions failed to adequately distinguish second-degree depraved-heart murder from involuntary manslaughter by not clearly requiring a finding of malice for depraved-heart murder.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the convictions.
- Read as a whole, the instructions sufficiently separated depraved-heart murder from gross-negligence manslaughter.
- The depraved-heart instruction’s “very high degree of risk” and “extreme disregard of the consequences” language adequately conveyed the malice element associated with depraved-heart murder under Maryland law.

## Legal Principles

- Second-degree depraved-heart murder in Maryland is a form of murder proved by conduct creating a very high risk of death or serious injury, done with awareness of that risk and an extreme disregard for human life; malice may be inferred from that level of reckless conduct.
- Involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence involves a lesser level of blameworthiness: grossly negligent conduct creating a high risk to human life, without malice.
- The distinction between depraved-heart murder and gross-negligence manslaughter turns on the degree of risk created and the degree of disregard shown toward the likely consequences.
- Jury instructions are reviewed in their entirety; a conviction will not be reversed if the overall charge fairly and accurately states the law and is not likely to mislead the jury, even if a party prefers different wording.

## Conclusion

Cook’s convictions were upheld because the trial court’s instructions, taken together, made clear that depraved-heart murder required a greater degree of risk and a more blameworthy state of mind than involuntary manslaughter, and that heightened recklessness functionally expressed the malice required for second-degree depraved-heart murder.


Cook v. State, 702 A.2d 971 (1997)