KIBBE V. HENDERSON, 534 F.2d 493 (2nd Cir. 1976) CASE BRIEF

KIBBE V. HENDERSON

534 F.2d 493 (2nd Cir. 1976)

NATURE OF THE CASE: (D) appealed from an order of the United States District Court, which denied D's petition for habeas corpus relief brought under 28 U.S.C.S. 2254 and based on the trial judge's failure to charge the jury with respect to causation on murder charge.

FACTS: Kibbe (D) and his codefendant, Roy Krall, met George Stafford, at a bar in Rochester, New York. Stafford had been drinking heavily and by about 9:00 p.m. he was so intoxicated that the bartender refused to serve him further. Ds saw Stafford offer a one-hundred-dollar bill for payment, which the bartender refused. Stafford began soliciting a ride to Canandaigua from the other patrons in the bar. D and Krall, who confessed to having already decided to rob Stafford, offered a ride and the three men left the bar together. Before starting out for Canandaigua, the three visited a second bar. When the bartender at this bar also refused to serve Stafford because of his inebriated condition, the three proceeded to a third bar, where each was served additional drinks. They left for Canandaigua in D's car about 9:30 that evening. Krall was driving the car. D demanded Stafford's money and, upon receiving it, forced Stafford to lower his trousers and remove his boots to prove he had no more. Between 9:30 and 9:40 p.m., Stafford was abandoned on the side of an unlit, rural two-lane highway. His boots and jacket were also placed on the shoulder of the highway. Stafford's eyeglasses remained in the car. There was testimony that it was 'very cold' that night and that strong winds were blowing recently fallen snow across the highway, although the night was clear and the pavement was dry. There was an open and lit service station in the general vicinity. The station was no more than one-quarter of a mile away. About half an hour later, Michael Blake, a college student, was driving his pickup truck northbound on the highway at 50 miles an hour, ten miles per hour in excess of the posted speed limit. A car passed Blake in a southbound direction and the driver flashed his headlights at Blake. Immediately thereafter, Blake saw Stafford sitting in the middle of the northbound lane with his hands in the air. Blake testified that he 'went into a kind of shock' as soon as he saw Stafford, and that he did not apply his brakes. Blake further testified that he did not attempt to avoid hitting Stafford because he 'didn't have time to react.' Blake stopped his truck and returned to assist Stafford, whereupon he found the decedent's trousers were around his ankles and his shirt was up to his chest. Stafford was wearing neither his jacket nor his boots. Stafford suffered massive head and body injuries as a result of the collision and died shortly thereafter. An autopsy revealed a high alcohol concentration of .25% in his blood. The Medical Examiner testified that these injuries were the direct cause of death. Ds were apprehended on December 31, 1970. They were tried for robbery and for the murder of Stafford. Under New York Penal Law 125.25(2) provides: A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when: (2) Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person. The judge failed to define or explain the issue of causation as that term is used in 125.25(2). No mention was made of the legal effect of intervening or supervening cause. D failed to take any exception whatsoever to this omission. The jury returned guilty verdicts on the charges of second degree murder, second degree robbery, and third degree grand larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction on finding that there was sufficient evidence that Stafford's death was caused by D's acts 'as well as by the acts of Blake.' D then petitioned for habeas corpus in the District Court for the Northern District. Judge Foley denied the petition and, on the question of the jury charge, noted that the correctness of instructions does not raise a constitutional claim cognizable on habeas corpus. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner