One of Heidgen`s other arguments is worth discussing further. He claims that his blood was taken illegally without his consent or an arrest warrant and should have been removed. The criminal court considered that it was not necessary to obtain the consent of the defendant before drawing his blood, as this would have been impossible given his total disorientation. This conclusion was not overturned by the Appeals Division. The evidence is also legally sufficient to support Taylor`s conviction for tainted indifference. Taylor fastened his seatbelt and started driving as fast as possible. She was driving at speeds of more than 80 miles per hour on a local road, without lights, sometimes on the wrong side of the road. Her statements to police showed that she had noticed at least some of the obstacles in her way, especially the pedestrian victim before hitting him. Taylor`s behavior was obviously hectic, but it`s also clear that she was aware of her surroundings. Seen in the most favorable light for the people, there was enough legal evidence to support Heidgen`s convictions for tainted indifference.
The jury could have determined that the accused was unhappy and self-destructive. Heidgen drove on the highway for more than two miles in the wrong direction, without reacting to other drivers approaching him, car horns or wrong traffic signs. Perhaps most importantly, more than one witness testified that the accused was following or appeared to be following the headlights of oncoming vehicles. Based on this evidence, the jury could have determined that he had noticed his surroundings despite the accused`s intoxication. The jury could reasonably have concluded that the defendant was driving, knowing full well that he was on the wrong side of the road and understanding the serious risks associated with this behaviour. Someone who engages in a high-speed game with chickens without completely neglecting the value of the lives thus threatened is undoubtedly a person whose guilt corresponds to a deliberate murderer. The common law punishes intentional homicide as murder if the accused commits an act of gross recklessness. A classic example of murder with a depraved heart under the common law is Commonwealth v. Malone, a Pennsylvania case in which the court upheld the conviction of a teenager for second-degree murder for a death resulting from a modified Game of Russian roulette in which each player pointed the gun at the other and fired, ultimately resulting in the death of one of them.
 It can also be said that this is a criminal indifference. In the United States, a corrupt heart murder or a corrupt indifference murder is a type of murder caused by a person`s tainted indifference to human life, even though the person may not have had an explicit intention to kill. To represent corrupt indifference, the conduct of the accused must be „so gratuitous, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so little consideration for the life or life of others, and so culpable that it justifies the same criminal responsibility as that which the law imposes on a person who intentionally causes a crime. Corrupt indifference focuses on the risk posed by the accused`s behavior, not on the injuries that actually occur. This person has so little regard for human life that he is willing to take the risk of ending a person`s life if he drives while intoxicated. This is the basis of this standard. Recklessness and corrupt indifference go hand in hand. In one case, People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983), the Court of Appeal, while investigating the meaning of „corrupt indifference,” ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse for „corrupt mental murder,” although it may be premeditated murder. His analysis began by distinguishing between manslaughter and the „corrupt indifferent recklessness” necessary for murder: essentially, we can extract from this definition the following meaning: with a few exceptions, all crimes require proof of the state of mind of the accused at the time of committing the crime. A defendant must have acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently to be convicted of the crime. Murder generally presupposes that the accused caused the victim`s death „intentionally or knowingly”.
In many cases, intent is used to prove the „intentional” element of the crime. However, many courts have also allowed the use of a standard of „corrupt indifference” to demonstrate that the person knowingly caused the death of the victim. Some jurisdictions are also using the tainted with indifference standard to improve what would otherwise be a manslaughter charge of murder. Manslaughter often requires only a demonstration of recklessness. While premature malice or intent are common features of a murder charge, in cases where the accused acted with depraved indifference, he or she may be charged with murder even if the death was involuntary. An example of a situation where depraved indifference could be used to elevate what would otherwise be a charge of manslaughter to murder is a death caused by a drunk driver.