Also known as: extreme indifference to human life · depraved heart · depraved-heart murder · reckless murder
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A form of recklessness in homicide law under which a defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death that so far departs from acceptable conduct as to manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life. This mental state elevates reckless homicide from manslaughter to murder. The standard requires subjective awareness of the risk coupled with circumstances that demonstrate a cold disregard for human life rather than mere gross negligence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Emma Erickson managed a metal fabrication plant and discovered the safety interlock on a hydraulic press had failed. To meet production quotas she disconnected the device and instructed workers to continue clearing jams. A new employee was crushed when the press cycled unexpectedly. Her decision to run the machine without the interlock despite known lethal risks demonstrated extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Emanuel Escobar joined two others in robbing a convenience store. During the robbery one accomplice shot and killed the clerk after Escobar had helped subdue the victim. Escobar knew the group carried loaded firearms and continued the crime. The circumstances of the armed robbery supplied the extreme indifference to the value of human life required for murder.
Enzo Eastwood hosted late-night open-bar parties on a hotel rooftop with a low railing and no lifeguard. A heavily intoxicated guest leaned over the edge and fell to his death. Eastwood knew the railing height created a serious fall hazard yet continued the events to boost business. The conduct created risks rising to extreme indifference to the value of human life supporting a murder charge.
Elliot Edmonds participated in an aggravated robbery during which an accomplice shot the store clerk. Edmonds did not fire the weapon or intend the death but knew the accomplice carried a gun and proceeded anyway. The jury could find that the robbery circumstances manifested extreme indifference to the value of human life even without personal intent to kill.
Esther Eisenberg helped her brothers escape from prison by supplying weapons and a getaway car. During the escape the brothers killed a guard in a shootout. Eisenberg knew the plan involved armed confrontation yet actively assisted. Her reckless participation under circumstances carrying a grave risk of death satisfied extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Edgar Evers drove the car for a robbery but remained outside while his partners entered the store. One partner shot and killed a clerk during the crime. Evers had no intent to kill and did not enter the building. The absence of personal participation or intent to kill prevented a finding of extreme indifference to the value of human life sufficient for the death penalty.
Ordinary recklessness supports manslaughter. Extreme indifference requires that the conscious disregard of a substantial homicidal risk so far departs from acceptable behavior that it constitutes a gross deviation warranting murder liability. The MPC Commentary distinguishes the two by asking whether the risk creation manifests extreme indifference beyond ordinary recklessness.
Supporting sources
…41-1501(1)(a), (2), (3) (1977) (a capital crime if death occurs during commission of the felony "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life"); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 636(a)(6), 636(b), 4209(a) (1979) (a capital crime only if the death is caused "with criminal negligence"); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 507.020(1)(b), (2) (Supp. 1980)…
…the most egregious form of criminal homicide. . . . For example, the Model Penal Code treats reckless killing, manifesting
…robbery, and, in the course of that offense, he, or an accomplice, caused [the clerk’s] death under circumstance manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life
…theory at trial was that Blueford had injured McFadden intentionally, causing the boy’s death “[u]nder circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life
…that the defendant intentionally set in motion a chain of events likely to cause death or great bodily injury, or acted with extreme indifference to the value of human life
No. The standard is satisfied by reckless conduct under circumstances showing extreme indifference even without purpose or knowledge that death would result. Inadvertent risk creation however extravagant cannot support murder under this provision.
Supporting sources
The MPC creates a presumption of extreme indifference when the actor is engaged in or is an accomplice in robbery rape arson burglary kidnapping or felonious escape. The presumption is rebuttable and liability still depends on whether the conduct actually manifested the required indifference.
Supporting sources
Yes. Accomplice liability allows conviction when the defendant knowingly participated in conduct carrying a grave risk of death even if another person delivered the fatal blow. Courts examine whether the overall circumstances of the joint activity manifested the required indifference.
Supporting sources
Both require a high degree of recklessness showing disregard for human life. Common-law formulations often speak of an abandoned and malignant heart while the MPC uses the phrase extreme indifference to the value of human life. The MPC standard is generally viewed as codifying the common-law concept with greater clarity.
Supporting sources