## Facts

- Barry Warren Kibbe and Roy A. Krall spent the evening drinking with George Stafford, who was thoroughly intoxicated and displayed large bills at a Rochester tavern.
- Stafford asked for a ride to Canandaigua; defendants agreed, having decided to steal his money.
- During the drive, Krall drove while Kibbe demanded Stafford’s money, slapped him, took his cash, and forced him to remove shoes and lower his trousers to ensure no money remained.
- Defendants forced Stafford out of the car onto the shoulder of a dark, rural two-lane highway on a freezing winter night with poor visibility, no street lights, and blowing snow.
- Stafford was left shoeless, without outer clothing, with trousers down, highly intoxicated, and without his eyeglasses (left in the car); defendants placed his shoes and jacket on the roadside and drove away.
- About 30 minutes later, a passing driver, Michael W. Blake, struck and killed Stafford, testifying he did not see Stafford in time to avoid impact.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants’ robbery and abandonment of Stafford under the described conditions was a sufficiently direct cause of death to satisfy the causation element of depraved-indifference murder, notwithstanding the intervening act of the driver who struck him.
2. Whether the trial court’s causation instructions were so inadequate as to require reversal of the murder convictions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the Appellate Division’s order and upheld the convictions.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find defendants’ conduct created a grave risk of death and “thereby” caused Stafford’s death.
- The court held the driver’s collision was a foreseeable consequence of the danger defendants created and did not constitute a superseding cause.
- The court held that, read as a whole, the trial court’s causation charge adequately stated the applicable standard and was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- For depraved-indifference murder under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(2), the prosecution must prove reckless conduct creating a grave risk of death that “thereby causes” death.
- Criminal causation is satisfied when the defendant’s conduct sets in motion a chain of events leading to death in a manner that is not too remote and is consistent with the risk created.
- An intervening act by a third party does not break causation when it is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct and not so extraordinary as to be a superseding cause.
- Proximate-cause questions in homicide commonly present fact issues for the jury when the evidence supports a finding of a direct causal connection.
- A brief causation instruction may be adequate when, in context, it conveys the need for a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the death and does not create a substantial risk of jury misunderstanding.

## Conclusion

The court upheld depraved-indifference murder convictions where defendants robbed an intoxicated victim and abandoned him in severe winter conditions on an unlit rural highway; the ensuing fatal collision by a passing motorist was a foreseeable result of the peril defendants created and did not sever criminal causation, and the causation charge was sufficient when considered in context.


People v. Kibbe, 35 N.Y.2d 407 (N.Y. 1974)