Caseflicks

New York Court of Appeals • 1956

People v. Decina

2 N.Y.2d 133 | 157 N.Y.S.2d 558 | 138 N.E.2d 799 | 63 A.L.R. 2d 970 | 1956 N.Y. LEXIS 631

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a driver may be criminally negligent for choosing to drive despite known seizure risks, but confidential medical statements made for diagnosis and treatment remain protected by the physician-patient privilege.

Background

Decina drove his car onto a Buffalo sidewalk after apparently losing consciousness, killing four schoolchildren and causing further injuries and property damage. At the hospital, he told Dr. Wechter that he had a history of Jacksonian epilepsy, had experienced prior seizures involving loss of consciousness, and had felt warning symptoms just before the crash.

He was indicted under Penal Law § 1053-a for criminal negligence in operating a vehicle resulting in death. The indictment alleged that, knowing he was subject to attacks likely to cause a prolonged loss of consciousness, he consciously chose to drive alone and then suffered such an attack. After conviction, the Appellate Division held the indictment sufficient but reversed and ordered a new trial because Decina's statements to Dr. Wechter were protected by the physician-patient privilege. Both sides appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the indictment stated criminal negligence under Penal Law § 1053-a when Decina was unconscious at the time his car struck the victims.

Holding

Yes. The indictment sufficiently alleged culpable negligence because Decina allegedly knowingly chose to drive despite knowing that he was subject to seizures that could cause a loss of consciousness.

Reasoning

On demurrer, the Court had to accept the indictment's allegations as true. Those allegations stated that Decina knew he was vulnerable to epileptic attacks or another disorder that could make him unconscious for a substantial period, yet deliberately drove alone on a public highway.

The culpable act was not the involuntary driving while unconscious. It was the earlier, conscious decision to operate a dangerous instrumentality despite awareness that he could suddenly become unable to control it. That decision could show the required disregard of foreseeable consequences and indifference to the safety of others.

The Court distinguished an unforeseen medical emergency, such as an unexpected heart attack or sudden sleeping spell. A driver with no prior knowledge or warning of a disabling condition stands differently from a driver who knowingly takes the risk that a known condition will incapacitate him.

A driver's license did not eliminate this personal responsibility. Section 1053-a imposed a duty on each driver to refrain from conduct that is culpably negligent, whether or not the driver possessed a license.

Issue #2

Whether Decina's statements to Dr. Wechter were protected by the physician-patient privilege.

Holding

Yes. Dr. Wechter acquired the information while attending Decina as a patient in a professional capacity, and the information was necessary to diagnosis and treatment.

Reasoning

The evidence supported a physician-patient relationship. Dr. Wechter saw Decina in the ordinary course of his duties as a hospital resident, took his medical history, diagnosed Jacksonian epilepsy, and participated in the care provided by the hospital staff. Decina was entitled to regard him as a treating physician, not as an examiner acting for police or prosecutors.

Actual treatment by the individual doctor was not indispensable. In a hospital, patient care is divided among physicians and staff, and the privilege cannot sensibly depend on whether the particular physician who obtained the history personally administered treatment.

Decina's account of his seizures, prior brain surgery, medication, and symptoms before the crash was directly relevant to diagnosing and treating his condition. It therefore fell within the statutory protection for information acquired in attending a patient and necessary for the physician to act professionally.

Issue #3

Whether the police guard's presence near the hospital-room doorway defeated the physician-patient privilege.

Holding

No. The guard's ability to overhear the conversation did not eliminate the privilege under the circumstances.

Reasoning

The physician-patient statute protected information acquired by a doctor while attending a patient; unlike the attorney-client statute, it did not expressly limit protection to communications made solely between client and lawyer. The privilege may therefore survive the presence of a third person.

The proper inquiry was whether, considering the circumstances and especially the reason for the third person's presence, the communication was intended to be confidential and otherwise met the statutory requirements. Here, the guard was stationed by public authorities, while Decina was receiving hospital care, rather than being voluntarily included in a conversation intended for disclosure.

Because the communications remained privileged, the trial court erred by admitting Dr. Wechter's testimony about Decina's medical history and statements. The Appellate Division therefore properly reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Dissents

Justice Desmond

Reasoning

Justice Desmond agreed that the conviction could not stand because the physician's testimony was improperly admitted. But he would have gone further and dismissed the indictment, concluding that its allegations did not describe any crime under Penal Law § 1053-a. Justices Fuld and Van Voorhis joined his opinion.

In his view, § 1053-a criminalized the reckless or culpably negligent operation of a vehicle, which necessarily required conscious and voluntary driving. The indictment itself alleged that Decina's dangerous driving occurred only after an epileptic attack rendered him unconscious. An unconscious person, Desmond reasoned, cannot operate a car in a reckless manner or in any other manner.

Desmond rejected the majority's relocation of culpability to Decina's earlier decision to drive. The statute, he argued, did not make it criminal to drive merely because one had a medical condition that might someday cause a loss of control; it addressed the immediate, conscious manner in which a vehicle was operated.

He also warned that the majority's reading would leave people with a broad range of medical conditions unable to know whether driving exposed them to criminal liability. Questions about whether and when persons with epilepsy or comparable conditions should drive were matters for clear licensing legislation, not an expansive construction of a criminal statute.