## Facts

- Emil A. Decina drove alone on a public street in Buffalo, New York, on a clear afternoon.
- Witnesses saw his car swerve across the center line, then veer onto the curb and travel along the sidewalk at increasing speed.
- The vehicle struck six schoolgirls from behind; four children later died from their injuries.
- The car continued along the sidewalk, broke a lamppost, and crashed into a grocery store wall, injuring at least one person and causing property damage.
- Observers described Decina as dazed or unconscious at the wheel while the horn sounded continuously.
- At the hospital, a physician diagnosed Decina with Jacksonian epilepsy after Decina reported a history of seizures, sometimes involving loss of consciousness.
- Decina was indicted under former New York Penal Law § 1053-a for operating a vehicle in a reckless or culpably negligent manner causing death, alleging he drove knowing he was subject to epileptic seizures.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1053-a was satisfied where the fatal driving occurred during an epileptic seizure, and the alleged culpable conduct was the earlier decision to drive despite known seizure risk.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted a treating physician’s testimony about Decina’s seizure history in violation of the statutory physician–patient privilege.

## Decision

- The court held the indictment was legally sufficient: a driver who knows he is subject to seizures that may cause loss of consciousness may be found culpably negligent for choosing to drive and causing death during a seizure.
- The court held the physician’s testimony about Decina’s medical history and prior seizures was privileged and was erroneously admitted.
- The court affirmed the order granting a new trial due to the privilege violation, while rejecting Decina’s challenge to the indictment.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability may rest on a defendant’s earlier voluntary conduct when that conduct foreseeably leads to harmful results during a later involuntary episode, if the defendant knowingly created the risk.
- Under § 1053-a, “reckless or culpably negligent” operation may be shown by the conscious decision to drive despite known medical conditions likely to cause sudden incapacitation; intent to kill is not required.
- The physician–patient privilege protects information obtained by a physician while treating a patient when necessary for diagnosis or treatment, including medical history of prior episodes.
- The presence of law enforcement during medical questioning does not, by itself, eliminate the privilege where the information is obtained for treatment purposes.
- Erroneous admission of privileged medical testimony bearing on a defendant’s knowledge and culpability warrants a new trial when prejudicial.

## Conclusion

The court permitted vehicular-homicide prosecution based on the defendant’s choice to drive despite known seizure risk, but required a new trial because the State proved key knowledge evidence through privileged physician–patient communications that were inadmissible.


People v. Decina, 2 N.Y.2d 133 (N.Y. 1956)