Continuous Reckless Driving as Depraved Indifference: People v. Bender Precedent

Introduction

The Appellate Division, Third Department of the Supreme Court of New York decided People v. Bender (2025 NYSlipOp 01678) on March 20, 2025. Donald Bender was convicted by a jury of first-degree reckless endangerment (Penal Law § 120.25) after weaving his SUV through heavy traffic, striking multiple vehicles, causing serious injuries and property damage, and eventually crashing into a house. The People dismissed a drug-impairment charge prior to verdict. Following conviction, Bender challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the court’s exclusion of psychiatric evidence, the conduct of counsel regarding speedy trial rights, and the denial of his post-conviction CPL 440.10 motion. The Third Department affirmed both the judgment and the denial of the 440 motion.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held that:

The evidence was legally sufficient to show Bender acted with depraved indifference to human life by repeatedly colliding with vehicles, continuing at high speed with a flat tire, and never stopping until crashing into a house.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, eyewitness testimony and airbag module data established that Bender consciously disregarded a grave risk of death.
The court did not err in excluding untimely psychiatric evidence under CPL 250.10, as Bender failed to show good cause for delay or the merit of the proposed testimony.
References to a dismissed drug-impairment charge in opening remarks did not deprive Bender of a fair trial where the jury was instructed to ignore it after dismissal.
Bender waived his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights through counsel, and his challenges were unpreserved.
His 2½–7 year sentence was not unduly harsh or severe, and moot in part due to discharge from parole.
The CPL 440.10 motion was properly denied without a hearing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

People v. Suarez (6 NY3d 202 [2005]): Defines “depraved indifference” as “an utter disregard for the value of human life.”
People v. Feingold (7 NY3d 288 [2006]): Reinforces the Suarez formulation and the need for proof of mental state by circumstantial evidence.
People v. Heidgen (22 NY3d 259 [2013]): Emphasizes fact-specific inquiry into a defendant’s mental state and likens driving on a crowded sidewalk at high speed to depraved indifference.
People v. Maldonado (24 NY3d 48 [2014]): Explains that depraved indifference goes beyond grossly unreasonable risk to a moral blindness or lack of concern for harm.
People v. Durham (146 AD3d 1070 [3d Dept 2017]): Highlights trial court discretion in late-filing psychiatric notices under CPL 250.10(2).
People v. Silburn (31 NY3d 144 [2018]): Describes the statutory notice requirements for psychiatric evidence and the purpose of eliminating surprise to the People.

These authorities shaped the court’s holding that continuous, purposeful collisions can establish depraved indifference and that strict compliance with pretrial psychiatric notice rules is required.

Legal Reasoning

1. Depraved Indifference and Reckless Endangerment:

Mens Rea: The court reaffirmed that first-degree reckless endangerment requires a defendant to “recklessly engage in conduct which creates a grave risk of death” under circumstances evincing depraved indifference.
Circumstantial Proof: Eyewitness accounts of Bender’s rage, weaving, repeated impacts, failure to brake, and full throttle in the final stretch—combined with airbag module data—demonstrated both awareness of risk and utter disregard for life.
Analogy: The court likened Bender’s conduct to driving on a crowded sidewalk, a paradigmatic example of depraved indifference (Heidgen, Suarez).

2. Exclusion of Psychiatric Evidence (CPL 250.10):

Statute requires written notice within 30 days of plea to introduce psychiatric evidence.
Bender failed to file timely notice or show good cause for a late filing; his vague proposed notice offered no adequate detail.
Court acted within sound discretion in precluding the evidence (Bourne, Wells, Silburn, Almonor).

3. Speedy Trial and Waiver:

Defendant did not preserve these claims by pretrial motion (CPL 210.20).
Counsel’s express requests for adjournment and plea discussions evidenced waiver of speedy trial rights (Wheeler, Hinds).

Impact

This decision:

Clarifies that a pattern of aggressive, high-risk driving—striking multiple vehicles and refusing to stop—can satisfy the depraved indifference standard for first-degree reckless endangerment.
Reinforces the importance of adherence to CPL 250.10 deadlines and the requirement to detail psychiatric testimony to avoid surprise.
Signals that courts will sustain convictions based on robust circumstantial evidence of mental state where the totality of conduct shows disregard for human life.
Serves as guidance to defense counsel on preserving speedy trial claims and on timely psychiatric notices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree (PL § 120.25): Occurs when one recklessly creates a grave risk of death with depraved indifference to human life.
Depraved Indifference: More than risking harm; it is a moral callousness or lack of concern that equates the actor in culpability to an intentional killer.
Circumstantial Evidence: Non-direct proof (e.g., eyewitness descriptions, vehicle data) from which a jury can infer mental state.
CPL 250.10 Notice: A mandatory, pre-trial written notice for psychiatric evidence; failure to comply can bar the defense from introducing such proof.
Weight vs. Sufficiency of Evidence: Sufficiency examines legal threshold (“could any rational jury find guilt?”); weight considers reliability and persuasiveness of evidence.
Speedy Trial Waiver: Counsel can waive a defendant’s statutory right by conduct (e.g., requesting adjournments, plea negotiations).

Conclusion

People v. Bender reinforces and refines the doctrine of depraved indifference within New York criminal law. By upholding a conviction based on continuous, willful collisions at high speed and refusing to stop until a house was breached, the court demonstrates that sustained, hazardous driving behavior can constitute an “utter disregard for human life.” The decision also underscores strict compliance with psychiatric notice requirements and the significance of counsel’s conduct in preserving speedy trial claims. As a model of thorough appellate reasoning, People v. Bender will guide trial and appellate courts in assessing both mens rea inference from circumstantial evidence and procedural adherence in criminal defense practice.