Published November, 2013
People v. Williams, Memorandum and Order (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2013)
This Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, decision affirms an order of the lower court reducing a count of felony reckless endangerment in the first degree to misdemeanor reckless endangerment in the second degree. Under New York law, the crime of reckless endangerment in the first degree requires that the defendant, under circumstances showing a depraved indifference to human life, recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death to another person.
In this case, the defendant engaged in unprotected sex with a partner without disclosing his HIV positive status. His partner later tested positive for HIV. The court found that the evidence did not support an indictment for reckless endangerment in the first degree. First, the court asserted that the defendant’s actions were legally insufficient to support a finding that he acted with depraved indifference to human life. The court specifically noted that when their sexual relationship ended, the defendant disclosed his status and urged his partner to be tested. Second, the court found that the defendant’s conduct did not present a grave risk of death to his partner. The court pointed to the testimony of an infectious disease expert, who explained that due to medical advances in the treatment of HIV, the prognosis of an person with HIV today is “outstanding.” In light of the expert’s testimony that patients with HIV now have the ability to live a “very healthy, normal lifestyle,” the court found that the State failed to establish that the defendant’s conduct posed a “grave or ‘very substantial’ risk of death” to his partner.
Copyright Information: CHLP encourages the broad use and sharing of resources. Please credit CHLP when using these materials or their content. and do not alter, adapt or present as your work without prior permission from CHLP.
Legal Disclaimer: CHLP makes an effort to ensure legal information is correct and current, but the law is regularly changing, and the accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. The legal information in a given resource may not be applicable to all situations and is not—and should not be relied upon—as a substitute for legal advice.