Have you been accused of a crime?
Call for a free consultation 24/7 toll-free:
(888) 744-7730

California Penal Code § [Section] 192(b) – Involuntary Manslaughter

California Penal Code § [Section] 192(b) – Involuntary Manslaughter

California Penal Code [CPC] §192(b) – Involuntary Manslaughter – Involuntary Manslaughter occurs whenever someone is killed by an unlawful act less severe than a felony or when someone is killed by the performance of a lawful act which might produce death but in an unlawful manner or without due caution. Section 192(b) applies only to killings that occur without malice.

If you're convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, you face a term of up to four years in a state prison and a fine of up to $10,000.  

What Does California Penal Code §192(b) [Involuntary Manslaughter] Prohibit?

In sum, to be guilty of violating the Involuntary Manslaughter law under CPC §192(b), you must:

  • Commit a crime; OR,
  • Commit a lawful act in an unlawful way; AND,
  • Be criminally negligent; AND,
  • Cause another person's death.

Defining “Involuntary Manslaughter” Under California Penal Code §192(b)

To convict you under CPC §192(b), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • COMMITTED A CRIME: You committed a crime; OR,
  • LAWFUL ACT: You committed a lawful act in an unlawful manner; AND,
  • CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE: You committed the crime or act with criminal negligence;[1] AND,
  • ACT(S) CAUSED DEATH: Youract(s) caused[2] the death of another person.

Note: The Code Section does not make homicide punishable if it isn't proximately caused by an unlawful act or while recklessly performing a lawful act which might produce death.

Example: Defendant Doctor knows that Propofol[3] is far too dangerous an anesthetic to prescribe without serious caution. Yet Doctor, deferring to the demands of Victim Victor, his very high-profile, wealthy patient, nonetheless prescribes the drug just to help Victor sleep. Victor dies of a subsequent overdose.[4] Now Doctor faces a charge under CPC §192(b). Should Doctor be convicted of the crime?

Conclusion: Doctor, knowing the use of Propofol, prescribed it. This is a lawful act. However, he prescribed the powerful drug for the mere purpose of inducing sleep. Thus, he committed the act unlawfully. The drug then caused an overdose, killing Victor. This made the act criminally negligent. These are the elements of the crime. Doctor should be convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter.

Penalties For Involuntary Manslaughter Under CPC §192(b)

If you're convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[5] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[6]

As stated previously, if you're convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter, you face a term of up to four (4) years in a state prison[7] and a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[8]

Defenses Against California Penal Code §192(b) – Involuntary Manslaughter

Four common defenses against a charge of Involuntary Manslaughter under CPC §192(b) are:

The Death Was Accidental

Example: Defendant David is cautiously driving through rural terrain. He and Victim Vern are using a public road. But the road is so poorly maintained that it's dangerous even when carefully driven. There are no warnings about this. David hits a pothole. His jeep flips. Vern is killed. Now David faces charges under §192(b). He insists that he isn't at fault for the death. Is David correct or should he be convicted?   

Conclusion: David performed a lawful task (driving along a public road). But, under the circumstances, the road was unsafe. This is true even though David exercised due caution. He also wasn't warned about the path's condition. Thus, he didn't know the dangers of driving the path. This means David both drove lawfully and wasn't negligent. Although Vern was killed, David is correct. Vern's death was accidental.

You Were Defending Yourself Or Someone Else

Example: Defendant Diane was compelled to defend Neighbor when Victim Vince invaded Neighbor's apartment with a gun and attempted to rape Neighbor. Diane is trained in the use of firearms. She's also licensed to use them. She shot Vince once, instantly killing him after Vince tried to attack Diane as well. Now Vince's family has charged Diane with a crime under CPC §192(b). Is Diane guilty?   

Conclusion: Diane willfully used a firearm against Vince to protect Neighbor from Vince's identical attack - an attack which he then turned against Diane. The facts state that she shot Vince just once. Given that she used only the force with which she was met, and for only as long as required, Diane is entitled to claim a legal excuse for Vince's killing.[9] Diane is not guilty. She was defending herself and someone else.  

You Were Falsely Accused

Example: Defendant Derek is a passenger on a speedboat. Victim Veronica, his drunken ex-girlfriend, takes over the steering wheel. She speeds, hits another boat, and is thrown clear of the vessel. Veronica is killed. When Veronica's family – who already personally dislike Derek – learn Derek was aboard, they accuse him under CPC §192(b) of killing Veronica by driving the boat. Should Derek be convicted?   

Conclusion: Derek, as the facts make clear, was not the person operating the vessel. His sole offense was being present when his ex-girlfriend made a terrible mistake. He was not legally responsible for her, nor did he volunteer to be. He is the subject of the accusation only because he was present and Veronica's family have a personal dislike of him. Therefore, Derek should not be convicted. He was falsely accused.

The Evidence Against You Is Insufficient

Example: Defendant Dominica is in a car accident that kills Victim Valentina. She's facing charges under §192(b). But Dominica notes there were no witnesses to the accident. Her blood was also screened at a hospital soon after the accident. It was free of drugs and alcohol. There's no other evidence. She says the death was accidental and that she's entitled “to the benefit of the doubt.” Is Dominica correct?   

Conclusion: Since there were no witnesses to Dominica's driving, no one can say whether she operated her vehicle in an unlawful way. Blood work doesn't demonstrate that she did anything illegal, either, as testing showed Dominica was sober. In the absence of additional evidence, there is good reason to doubt whether Dominica committed the crime. She is correct. The evidence against her is insufficient.

Related Offenses

Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §192(a) and/or have common elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

California law includes several offenses related to Voluntary Manslaughter: Murder (CPC §187(a)), DUI Murder (“Watson Rule” Murder) (CPC §§ [Sections] 187, 189 (a),(b)), Attempted Murder (CPC §§187(a), 664(a)), Voluntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(a)),  Vehicular Manslaughter (CPC §192(c)), Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(a)), Assault (CPC §240), Assault with a Deadly Weapon (CPC §245(a)(1)), Battery (CPC §242), Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury (CPC §243d), Child Abuse (CPC §273d(a)), Child Endangerment (273a(a)), Corporal Injury on Spouse (CPC §273.5), Domestic Battery (CPC §243(e)(1)), and Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(a)).

Murder

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus with malice aforethought. Penal Code Section 187(a) applies to murders that are premeditated or specified in the criminal statutes.  The Section also applies to killings that occur during the commission of dangerous felonies via ‘the Felony-Murder Rule.'

If you're convicted of Murder, the penalty may be:

  • A life term in a state prison without the possibility of parole;[10] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[11]

Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[12] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[13]

More information can be found in the Murder section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That's our guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Murder

To convict you under CPC §187(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You committed an act that caused the death of another person or a fetus or you had a legal duty to help, care for, rescue, warn, maintain the property of, or perform some other action for another person and failed to perform that duty, with that failure causing the death of another person or a fetus. When you acted or failed to act, you had a state of mind called malice aforethought. Finally, you killed without lawful excuse or justification.

Example: Defendant Dick admits that he watched as Victim Vera drowned in her own backyard pool. He also admits to being a skilled swimmer. But he did nothing to put Vera in the water, he says, and is not a lifeguard or other form of licensed rescue worker. Thus, Dick says that he can't be responsible for Vera's death. Nonetheless, he's facing a charge under CPC §187(a). Is Dick guilty, under these circumstances?

Conclusion: The facts provide no reason to believe Vera drowned owing to any act committed by Dick. Dick also owed no legal duty to rescue Vera because he didn't assume responsibility for her situation. Nor did Dick bear a duty by having a position as some form of rescue worker. On these facts, it doesn't matter whether Dick could swim or not. Nor does it matter that he watched Vera perish. He is innocent.

DUI Murder (“Watson Rule” Murder)

DUI Murder (CPC §§187(a), 189(a),(b)) is a form of second-degree murder originating with the People v. Watson[14] case. Watson held that a person with a prior California DUI conviction can be charged with murder if he or she subsequently kills a person while driving again under the influence. This is because driving under such circumstances creates “implied” malice[15] under California criminal law.

If you're convicted of DUI Murder, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to fifteen (15) years in a state prison;[16] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[17]

DUI Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[18] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[19]

More information can be found in the DUI section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That is guaranteed.

California Jury Instructions – DUI Murder

To convict you under CPC §§187(a), 189 (a),(b)), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You committed an act that caused the death of another person or a fetus or you had a legal duty to help, care for, rescue, warn, maintain the property of, or perform some other action for another person and failed to perform that duty, with that failure causing the death of another person or a fetus. When you acted or failed to act, you had a state of mind called malice aforethought. Finally, you killed without lawful excuse or justification.

Example: Defendant Dom is drunk when he takes his speed boat to a lake. He drives the boat above the speed limit. He nearly hits two boats as he spins the vessel in circles. Eventually, Dom strikes a dock. He is thrown clear of the boat. He lands on the hard shore and is killed. Prosecutors are considering filing charges under CPC §§187(a), 189 (a),(b)) against him. Should they proceed against Dom, on these facts?

Conclusion: Dom committed an act which resulted in a death. But Dom's act killed no one other than Dom. Thus, it is irrelevant whether there was a legal excuse for the death. Nor does it matter whether Dom considered harming himself, which could theoretically satisfy the element of malice aforethought. Prosecutors must not attempt to charge Dom under CPC §§187(a), 189 (a),(b)).

Attempted Murder

Attempted Murder (CPC §§187(a), 664(a)) occurs whenever anyone attempts to commit a murder but fails, is prevented, or is intercepted in its perpetration. To be guilty, you must take a direct step towards killing someone who does not die.

Attempted Murder is prosecuted as a form of first-degree offense. If you're convicted of Attempted Murder, the penalty may be:

  • A term of life in a state prison;[20] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[21]

Attempted Murder is also punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[22] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[23]

More information can be found in the “Everything You Need To Know About California Attempted Murder” Blog on the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That is our guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Attempted Murder

To convict you under CPC §§187(a), 664(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing another person or a fetus and you intended to kill that person or fetus.

Example: Defendant Dallas wants to kill Victim Veda, his math instructor. Entering class one morning, he leaves an apple on her desk. Little does Veda know that Dallas injected it with a lethal dose of cyanide. But, before Veda can touch the fruit, Dallas has a change of heart. He takes back the apple.[24] Later, Veda learns of Dallas's effort. Now Dallas faces charges under CPC §§187(a) and 664(a). Is Dallas guilty?   

Conclusion: Dallas took a direct step towards poisoning Veda; that is, he left a poisoned apple on her desk. He intended to kill her at the time. The effort was ineffective owing to Dallas's own “eleventh hour” change of heart. Thus, Dallas committed acts fulfilling the elements of the charge. He is guilty.

Voluntary Manslaughter

Section 192(a) of the Penal Code makes it illegal to kill a human being without malice. When the crime occurs “upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion” (or when the accused had an honest but incorrect belief that she or he had to kill in self-defense), it's punished as “Voluntary Manslaughter.”[25]

If you're convicted of Voluntary Manslaughter, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to eleven (11) years in a state prison;[26] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[27]

Furthermore, Voluntary Manslaughter is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[28] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[29]

California Jury Instructions – Voluntary Manslaughter

To convict you under CPC §192(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You were provoked and acted under the influence of intense emotion that obscured your reasoning. Additionally, you were provoked in a way that would cause the average person to act from pure passion.

Example: Defendant Dennis knows that he becomes violent when he drinks alcohol. Nonetheless, he goes to a bar and gets drunk one night. While there, Victim Vincente bumps into him and doesn't excuse himself. Dennis follows him and finds out where he lives. He returns to Vincente's house and kills him a week later. Now, facing a charge under §192(a), Dennis says he's innocent as charged. Is Dennis guilty?

Conclusion: Dennis, knowing how he is when he drinks, willingly put himself in a situation in which he could become violent. Then he sought to kill Vincente over something most would consider a slight. He had waited for enough time to “cool down.” These aren't facts supporting conviction under §192(a). While he should be convicted under §187(a), Vincente is correct. He isn't guilty of the crime as charged.

Vehicular Manslaughter

Vehicular Manslaughter (CPC §192(c)) involves driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, with or without gross negligence or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death and acting unlawfully with gross negligence. The Section also makes it illegal to cause a death while producing a vehicular collision or accident for financial gain.

If you're convicted of Vehicular Manslaughter, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to ten (10) years in a state prison;[30] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[31]
California Jury Instructions – Vehicular Manslaughter

To convict you under CPC §192(c)(3), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You drove a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, with or without gross negligence, resulting in a death or you drove a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death and acted unlawfully with gross negligence, resulting in a death.

Example: Defendant Daria conspires with Friend to stage a car accident and file a false insurance claim. Daria is to graze the side of Friend's vehicle. But Daria loses control of her car when they attempt the actual accident. She crushes Friend's vehicle and kills her. Now Daria faces charges under §192(c)(3). Daria says that – while she's very sorry – she shouldn't be convicted for an accident. Is Daria innocent? 

Conclusion: Daria drove her vehicle with the intent of staging an accident and filing a false claim. Friend was killed by the accident. Killing while staging an accident is specially prohibited under Section 192 and it is irrelevant whether Daria caused the death intentionally. The mere fact that Friend's death occurred in the course of an accident fraud violated the Code Section. Thus, Daria is guilty.

Assault

California's Assault law (also known as “Simple Assault”) (CPC §240) applies whenever anyone willfully does anything that would result in applying force to another person while having facts that would make a reasonable person realize the act would result in applying force to someone else. To be convicted, you have to have the present ability to apply force and you can't have acted in self-defense or defense of another. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts constituting assaults can result in deaths punishable under Section 192(b).

If you're convicted of Assault, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both jail time and a fine.[32]

More information can be found in the Assault section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. It is our guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Assault

To convict you under CPC §240, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully did an act that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person. When you acted, you were aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the act would directly and probably result in the application of force to a particular person (or persons) and you had the present ability to apply force to another. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Dane admits to intervening in a fight between Victim Vanda and Girlfriend. He admits to threatening to hit Vanda if she didn't leave Girlfriend alone. He admits to striking out his fist at Vanda. He was close enough to hit her. He wanted her to think he would do it, but he did not touch her. Thus, Dane says that he shouldn't be convicted of violating CPC §240. Is Dane correct, on these facts?

Conclusion: Dane willfully performed an act that led Vanda to believe he was about to use direct and probable force against her. He knew what he was doing. He had the ability to apply force against Vanda – and not touching the victim is part of how Assault is defined. But Dane was defending Girlfriend and used no force. He also acted only for as long as was necessary. Dane is correct, though his reason is not.  

Assault With A Deadly Weapon

Assault With A Deadly Weapon (CPC §245(a)(1)) occurs in California whenever anyone assaults another person with a deadly weapon other than a firearm or when anyone assaults another person using force likely to produce great bodily injury. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 245(a)(1) may also result in charges under Section 192(b) in the same trial.

The prosecution can charge you with a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the facts of the case, making Assault With A Deadly Weapon a “wobbler”[33] crime. If you're convicted of Assault With A Deadly Weapon, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years is state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[34]

You can find more information in the Assault With A Deadly Weapon section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee it.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Assault With A Deadly Weapon

To convict you under CPC §245(a)(1), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You assaulted someone with a deadly weapon other than a firearm or used force likely resulting in great bodily injury. You acted willfully and had facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize the act would result in using force. You also had the ability to use force likely to produce great bodily injury or assault someone and you weren't acting in self-defense or defense of another person.

Example: Defendant Dee's in custody for striking Victim Vi over the head with a heavy brick, putting Vi in the critical care unit of Local Hospital. She admits that she intended on hitting Vi and that she had no legal excuse for doing so. Nonetheless, Dee insists that she can't be guilty of a charge under CPC §245(a)(1) because she didn't use a deadly weapon like a knife. Is Dee correct or is she guilty?

Conclusion: Dee willfully struck Vi. She did so with such force that Vi required critical hospital care. She knew what she was doing and had no excuse for what she did. These are the elements of the offense. The Code Section doesn't simply prohibit using deadly weapons other than firearms. It also generally makes illegal using force likely to produce great bodily injury. Dee is incorrect. She is guilty as charged.    

Battery

Battery (CPC §242) involves use of willful and unlawful force on another person. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 242 may also result in charges under Section 192(b) in the same trial.

If you're convicted of Battery, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $2,000 (two-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both jail time and a fine.[35]

You can find more information in the Battery section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee that.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Battery

To convict you under CPC §242, the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully touched someone in a harmful or offensive manner. Additionally, you didn't act in self-defense or defense of someone else, or while reasonably disciplining a child.

Example: Defendant Drake is attending the Oscars. Victim Vero, his friend, is presenting an award to him. But Drake takes exception to several things Vero says about Drake's Son. Drake leaps onto the stage and slaps Vero across the face.[36] Drake later apologizes, saying that it was a joke, but Vero has Drake arrested and charged under CPC §242. Should Drake be convicted, under the circumstances?

Conclusion: Drake willfully and physically attacked Vero on the Oscars stage. Vero had not used force against Son, so Drake couldn't use force against Vero, in turn. Obviously, Vero is not Drake's son. Thus, Drake had no legal excuse for the attack on Vero. Finally, the assault harmed or offended Vero enough that he had Drake charged with a crime. On these facts, Drake is guilty no matter his humorous intent. 

Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury

California's statute forbidding Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury (CPC §243(d)) applies when anyone commits a battery resulting in serious injury. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 243(d) may also generate charges under Section 192(b).

Since Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury can be prosecuted as a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the facts of the case, CPC §243(d) is considered a “wobbler”[37] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[38] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[39]

More information can be found in the Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. It's a guarantee.

California Jury Instructions – Battery Causing Great Bodily Injury

To convict you under CPC §243(d), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully touched someone in a harmful or offensive manner. That person suffered serious bodily injury as a result of the force you used. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else or while reasonably disciplining a child.

Example: Defendant Deana happens upon Victim Vick sitting on a ledge outside a building. Deana is under the impression that there's a platform just a few feet below the ledge, so, as a prank, she sneaks up behind Vick and bumps into him just hard enough to push him off. Vick falls thirty feet and breaks both his legs. He then charges Deana under CPC §243(d). Should Deana be convicted, on these facts? 

Conclusion: Deana willfully touched Vick in a way producing serious bodily injury. Since she was jesting, Deana had no legal excuse. These are the elements of the crime. Deana must take her battery victim as she finds him – meaning that she's responsible for what actually happens to Vick after the contact, not merely what she thinks will happen. While she meant no serious harm, Deana should still be convicted. 

Child Abuse

Child Abuse (CPC §273d(a)) law prohibits willfully inflicting cruel or inhuman physical punishment or any traumatic injury on a child. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 273d(a) may also result in charges under Section 192(b) in the same trial.

Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 273d(a) is a “wobbler”[40] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) years in a state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $6,000 (six-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[41]

Note: If you're convicted of a violating CPC §273d(a) within ten years of a prior for conviction of the same offense, you will receive four additional years in state prison.

More information can be found in the Child Abuse section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. It's guaranteed.

California Jury Instructions – Child Abuse

To convict you under CPC §273d(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully inflicted cruel or inhuman punishment and/or injury on a child. The punishment and/or injury caused physical trauma. Finally, you had no legal excuse or justification.

Example: Defendant Danny has great difficulty disciplining Victim Vic, his young son. Danny takes to locking Vic in his room when Vic comes home from school. The frequency and duration of these punishments begins to affect Vic's concentration. He starts becoming listless in class. Teachers conclude that the boy is being abused. Now Danny faces charges under §273d(a). Should Danny be convicted?

Conclusion: Vic is a child. But Danny willfully inflicted punishment on him which - at least with respect to its effects – would probably not be described as “cruel or inhuman.” Assuming Danny did so, then he did not exceed the scope of excusable disciplinary conduct. (Child discipline must be reasonable). Thus, Danny also had a legal excuse. Finally, Vic was not physically harmed. Danny should not be convicted.  

Child Endangerment

Penal Code Section 273a(a) makes it illegal to permit any child to suffer unjustifiable pain or mental suffering under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death. The statute applies whether or not you have custody of the child. The law additionally forbids permitting a child to be placed in a situation where the child's health is endangered. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate §273a(a) may also result in charges under §192(b) in the same trial.

Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 273a(a) is a “wobbler”[42] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) years in state prison;[43] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[44]

Child Endangerment is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[45] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[46]

More information can be found in the California Child Endangerment Attorney section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. That's always guaranteed.

California Jury Instructions – Child Endangerment

To convict you under CPC §273a(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully inflicted pain on a child or you permitted a child to suffer or you had care or custody of a child and permitted the child to suffer or you permitted the child to be injured or you permitted the child to be somewhere dangerous. You hurt the child, permitted the child to suffer, or permitted the child's injury when it was likely to produce great bodily harm or death or you were criminally negligent. Finally, you weren't reasonably disciplining the child.

Example: Defendant Douglass goes to a busy market with Victim Vern, his young son. They become separated at one point. Douglass doesn't realize this until Vern has made his way across the market and has asked Cashier to page Douglass. When Douglass gets to the front of the store, Cashier berates him. He threatens to report Douglass for violating CPC §273a(a). Should Douglass be charged with a crime?

Conclusion: Douglass arguably permitted his young son to be put in a dangerous situation, having left Vern unprotected while surrounded by strange persons at a market. He wasn't disciplining Vern. These are elements of the crime. But Douglass had no idea this had occurred. Nor do the facts state that Vern suffered or was injured, so Douglass couldn't have been criminally negligent. He shouldn't be charged.

Corporal Injury On A Spouse

Corporal Injury On A Spouse (CPC §273.5(a)) occurs when anyone willfully inflicts corporal injury on a victim, the injury was upon someone with whom the assailant had a domestic relationship, and, the corporal injury resulted in a traumatic condition. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate §273.5(a) may also result in charges under §192(b) in the same trial.

Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 273.5(a) is a “wobbler”[47] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty, without additional enhancement, may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $6,000 (six-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[48]

More information can be found in the California Corporal Injury Law section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee it.

California Jury Instructions – Corporal Injury On A Spouse

To convict you under CPC §273.5(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully inflicted a physical injury on your spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, the mother or father of your child, or someone with whom you have, or previously had, an engagement or dating relationship. The injury resulted in a traumatic condition. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Di hates Victim Virgil, her ex-husband's new boyfriend. She plots to hurt Virgil by poisoning him with food. This she does. Virgil is made terribly sick and must be admitted to a hospital emergency room. He comes within hours of dying. Later, when Di's plot is uncovered, Di is charged under CPC §273.5(a). She insists that she cannot be guilty of the charge. Is Di correct, on these facts?

Conclusion: Di willfully inflicted physical injury that nearly killed Virgil. She was neither defending herself nor anyone else. These are elements of the crime. But Virgil is not Di's “spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant,” the father of her child, or someone with whom she has, “or previously had, an engagement or dating relationship.” Di is both guilty of an attack and correct about the charge.

Domestic Battery

Domestic Battery (CPC §243(e)(1)) involves willfully inflicting unlawful force or violence upon an intimate partner. That includes a homosexual or heterosexual person who is one of the following: your current or former spouse, your fiance or fiancee, a co-parent of your child, a person with whom you have or a had a dating relationship, or a person with whom you live. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate CPC §243(e)(1) may also result in charges under CPC §192(b) in the same trial.

If you're convicted of Domestic Battery, the penalty may be:

  • Up to one year in county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $2,000 (two-thousand dollars).[49]

More information can be found in the California Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Law section of the Kann California Law Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann California Law Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call goes directly to a lawyer. We always guarantee it.

California Jury Instructions – Domestic Battery

To convict you under CPC §243(e)(1), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully and unlawfully touched a person in a harmful or offensive manner. The complainant is your spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, fiancé[e], or a person with whom you currently have, or previously had, a dating or engagement relationship, or the mother or father of your child. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Devers has an ongoing feud with Victim Vira, his very religious former flat-mate. While they haven't shared an apartment in a year, Devers has such hatred of Vira that he begins graffitiing her home with occult symbols. Then he starts leaving meat as a “sacrifice” on her doorstep. Vira eventually sees this and has him arrested under CPC §243(e)(1). Should Devers be convicted? 

Conclusion: Devers willfully engaged in a pattern of behavior that frightened Vira. But Devers never actually touched Vira. Thus, while Vira is Devers's former cohabitant, and had no legal excuse for his acts, an element of the charge is missing. If even one cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a U.S. court, the accused is innocent. This might be a case of Stalking.[50] Devers shouldn't be convicted.

Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated (CPC §191.5(a)) makes it illegal to kill a human being without malice aforethought while driving a vehicle and being intoxicated. The driving has to violate one of the enumerated sections of the Vehicle Code. The killing must be the proximate result of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, performed with gross negligence, or the proximate result of a lawful act that might produce death being performed in an unlawful manner and with gross negligence. The crime is related to Involuntary Manslaughter because acts that would violate CPC §191.5(a) may also result in charges under CPC §192(b) in the same trial.

Since you can be convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the facts of your case, Section 191.5(a) is a “wobbler”[51] crime: punishment “wobbles” between two degrees of severity. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to ten (10) years in a state prison;[52] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[53]
California Jury Instructions – Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated

To convict you under CPC §191.5(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You drove under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug or you drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher or you drove under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or a drug or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug when under age of 21 or you drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of 21. While driving that vehicle and being under the influence, you also committed a misdemeanor, or an infraction, or an otherwise lawful act that might cause death. You committed the act with gross negligence. Finally, your grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person.

Example: Defendant Dick admits that he drove his vehicle while high on methamphetamine.[54] He admits that he made an illegal left turn that caused a crash with Victim Vicky's car. Nonetheless, facing a charge under CPC §191.5(a), he insists that he cannot be guilty of the charge because Vicky is still alive. Is Dick correct or should he be convicted? 

Conclusion: Dick drove while under the influence of a drug. He committed an offense which would be no more serious that a misdemeanor (making an illegal left turn). These are elements of the crime. But Dick is correct about Vicky being alive. That she did not die in the accident means that Dick couldn't have committed a manslaughter. On these facts, Dick should not be convicted.

What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter?

The State of California treats Involuntary Manslaughter as an exceptionally serious offense. If you're charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your rights, freedom, and livelihood are at stake.

Remember, a professional criminal defense attorney may be able to:

  • Negotiate a lesser charge in a plea bargain;
  • Reduce your sentence;
  • Or even get charges dismissed completely.

The attorneys at the Kann California Law Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's criminal justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities. 

If you or someone you know has been arrested for, or charged with, Involuntary Manslaughter, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a strategy that will help you obtain the best possible outcome.

Contact the Kann California Law Group today to schedule your free and confidential consultation.  

References

[1] “Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when: [¶] 1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; [¶] AND [¶] 2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. [¶] In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 581 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[2] “An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, [the jury or judge must] consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence. [¶] There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor that causes the death.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 581 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[3] See “Propofol,” Wikipedia.org.

[4] Fact pattern based on acts of Conrad Murray which resulted in the death of Michael Jackson. See “People v. Murray,” Wikipedia.org.

[5] See California Penal Code [CPC] §193 (b). 

[6] See CPC §672.

[7] See Endnote 5.

[8] See Endnote 6.

[9] See “Self Defense and Defense of Another,” CALCRIM 3470 (CALCRIM) (2022). 

[10] See CPC §190 (a).

[11] See Endnote 6.

[12] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (1).   

[13] See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).  

[14] See People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981) at SCOCAL (Supreme Court Of California Resources).

[15]  See CPC §188 (a) (2).

[16] See Endnote 10.

[17] See Endnote 6.

[18] See Endnote 12.

[19] See Endnote 13.

[20] See CPC §664 (a).

[21] See Endnote 6.

[22] See CPC §667.5 (c) (7).

[23] See Endnote 13.

[24] Fact pattern based on an incident in which J. Robert Oppenheimer, then a student at Christ's College, Cambridge, attempted to poison an instructor. See “J. Robert Oppenheimer: Studies in Europe,” Wikipedia.org. 

[25] See CPC §192 (a).

[26] See CPC §193 (a).

[27] See Endnote 6.

[28] See Endnote 12.

[29] See Endnote 13.

[30] See CPC §193 (c) (3).

[31] See Endnote 6.

[32] See CPC §19.

[33] See “Wobbler Law and Legal Definition” at USLegal.com.    

[34] See CPC §245 (a) (1).

[35] See CPC §243 (a).

[36] Fact pattern based on Will Smith's slapping of presenter Chris Rock at the March 2022 Oscars. See “Will Smith-Chris Rock slapping incident,Wikipedia.org.

[37] See Endnote 33.

[38] See CPC §243 (d).

[39] See Endnote 6.

[40] See Endnote 33.

[41] See CPC §273d (a).

[42] See Endnote 33.

[43] See CPC §273a (a).

[44] See Endnote 6.

[45] For example, see CPC §1192.7 (c) (6).

[46] See Endnote 13.

[47] See Endnote 33.

[48] See CPC §273d (a).

[49] See CPC §243 (e) (1).

[50] See CPC §646.9 (a). See, also, “Stalking,” Kannlawoffice.com.

[51] See Endnote 33.

[52] See CPC §191.5 (c) (1).

[53] See Endnote 6.

[54] See “Methamphetamine” at Wikipedia.org.

Menu