People V. Cahill: Domestic Violence and the Death Penalty Debate in New York

INTRODUCTION For much of its history, New York has been a death penalty state. In 1995, after much controversy, and with great fanfare, Governor Pataki signed a new capital punishment statute, New York Penal Law section 125.27. (1) This law and related statutes manifested a community commitment to capital punishment, a belief in its efficiency as a criminal justice tool, and an expression of democratic majoritarian will that it be carried out. Recently, several trial courts imposed the death penalty pursuant to this statute. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and set aside the death sentences in each one of these cases. (2) And, in June 2004, in People v. LaValle, (3) the Court declared the "deadlock instruction" provision of the New York death penalty statute unconstitutional and enjoined imposition of the death penalty in the state. No one has ever been executed under section 125.27. One of the Court's decisions, People v. Cahill, illustrates significant deficiencies in New York death penalty jurisprudence, deficiencies that raise issues about death penalty statutes in many other states. (4) The New York Court of Appeals decision in Cahill allowed a ruthless, calculating, and cold blooded killer to escape the death sentence on facts that most New York citizens, whether death penalty proponents or opponents, would find required the criminal law's ultimate punishment. In a state that relatively recently, and in great detail, statutorily recommitted itself to the death penalty, the result in Cahill illustrates serious shortcomings in New York Penal Law section 125.27 that should be remedied if and when the death penalty is reinstated. Parts I and II of this article set forth the facts of Cahill, summarize the Court of Appeals' decision reversing James ("Jeff") Cahill's first degree murder conviction, and explain the bases for setting aside his death sentence. Part III proposes four new or modified categories of death penalty-eligible offenses covering: (1) deliberate and premeditated murder based on careful reflection and planning; (2) the intentional killing of incapacitated or vulnerable victims; (3) any intentional killing committed during the commission of serious burglaries without regard to the underlying crime supporting the burglary charge; and (4) domestic violence murder. Part IV examines the debate generated by the Court of Appeals' ruling in LaValle on whether capital punishment should be restored in New York. (5) The article concludes by urging that any new death penalty statute be revised to include at least one of the proposals contained in Part III of the article. The people of New York, through their elected representatives, must, once again, make a choice on capital punishment. Recent Court of Appeals' decisions in death penalty cases leave New York without a workable death penalty law. Any legislative effort to revise the law must include "reforms" of death-eligible categories of murder that will make the statute meaningful, effective, and just. I. THE MURDER OF JILL RUSSELL CAHILL Early in the morning of April 21, 1998, during a heated argument, Jeff Cahill hit his wife, Jill Russell Cahill, in the head with a baseball bat. (6) At least four blows were inflicted. To this day, no one knows the reasons underlying this confrontation. There were marital problems and a separation agreement had been signed, even though the couple continued to live in their marital home. The assault occurred in the presence of the Cahills' two young children. At some point, Jill Cahill cried out for their assistance because their "father was trying to kill her." (7) After the attack, rather than immediately calling for medical assistance, Jeff called his parents. Only after the arrival at the scene of Jeffs parents, brother, and a family friend, who happened to be a doctor, were the police summoned. They found the victim "covered in blood, writhing in pain and moaning incoherently. …