Epps v. Poole, 687 F.3d 46

Background

Darnell Epps was convicted in New York of second-degree depraved-indifference murder as an accomplice for the shooting in a store when his brother Darryl, the principal shooter, fired multiple times.
Darryl pleaded guilty to second-degree intentional murder; Darnell was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 17.5 years to life in prison.
Advancements in New York depraved-indifference law during 2003–2006 raised questions whether Hafeez and subsequent decisions altered the sufficiency of Epps’s conviction finalized in December 2003.
Epps argued the trial evidence showed only intent to kill by Darryl, not the requisite depraved indifference for accomplice liability under the law as it stood when his conviction became final.
The Appellate Division held the evidence sufficient under New York law as it then existed; the district court denied habeas relief, and the Second Circuit reviews de novo under Jackson v. Virginia with a doubly deferential standard.
The court ultimately affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division did not unreasonably apply federal law in rejecting the sufficiency challenge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supported the depraved-indifference murder conviction as to both defendants under Jackson.	Epps contends evidence only supported intent to kill by Darryl, not depraved indifference.	State law at the time allowed conviction under Register/Sanchez standards even with explicit intent by the principal.	Yes; the evidence could support depraved-indifference murder under the law then in effect.
Whether Hafeez changed the law so as to retroactively undermine the conviction.	Hafeez signaling a shift from recklessness to depraved indifference undermines sufficiency.	New York Court of Appeals did not announce a retroactive “point of no return”; state law remained valid for final convictions.	No retroactive abrogation; Hafeez did not render the conviction invalid at the finality date.
Whether accomplice liability requires shared intent between principal and accomplice under New York law.	Shared intent is required to hold the accomplice liable.	Accomplice liability focuses on aiding the offender to engage in the conduct; the mental state alignment is contextual.	Court defers to state-law interpretation but ultimately affirms sufficiency under either view, upholding the conviction.
Whether the Appellate Division correctly applied federal standards to the sufficiency ruling.	Appellate Division applied law faithfully and relied on evolving New York standards.	Any misapplication of state law would warrant federal review.	Appellate Division did not apply federal law unreasonably; the conviction is supported.
Whether the Court should apply a doubly deferential standard of review to state-court sufficiency determinations.	Standard might be stricter given evolving state law.	Second Circuit should defer to both jury verdict and state court interpretations unless unreasonable.	Yes; the standard is doubly deferential and the decision was not unreasonable.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Register, 60 N.Y.2d 270 (1983) (established Register regime for depraved-indifference murder)
Policano v. Herbert, 7 N.Y.3d 588 (2006) (summarized the Register regime and evolving standard)
People v. Hafeez, 100 N.Y.2d 253 (2003) (reversed conviction where attack was quintessentially intentional)
People v. Sanchez, 98 N.Y.2d 373 (2002) (case defining recklessness and depraved indifference framework)
People v. Feingold, 7 N.Y.3d 288 (2006) (finalizes depraved-indifference mens rea as culpable mental state)
Policano v. Herbert, 7 N.Y.3d 588 (2006) (restates elements and standard for depraved indifference)
Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003) (finality for habeas review and certiorari timing)
People v. Gonzalez, 1 N.Y.3d 464 (2004) (addressed depraved-indifference elements post Hafeez)
People v. Payne, 3 N.Y.3d 266 (2005) (clarified evolution of depraved-indifference law)