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

California Penal Code § [Section] 192(c)(1) – Vehicular Manslaughter

California Penal Code § [Section] 192(c)(1) – Vehicular Manslaughter

California Penal Code [CPC] §192(c)(1) – Vehicular Manslaughter – Section 192(c)(1) makes it illegal to drive a vehicle while committing an unlawful act not amounting to a felony with gross negligence, resulting in a death, as well as driving in an unlawful manner any vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, with gross negligence. Section 192(c)(1) applies only to killings that occur without malice.

The prosecution can charge you with a felony or misdemeanor count of Vehicular Manslaughter, depending on the facts of the case, making it a “wobbler”[1] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, the penalty may be a term of up to six years in a state prison and a fine of up to $10,000.  

What Does California Penal Code §192(c)(1) [Vehicular Manslaughter] Prohibit?

In sum, to be guilty of violating the Vehicular Manslaughter law under CPC §192(c)(1), you must:

  • Drive a vehicle or operate a vessel; AND,
  • Commit a misdemeanor or infraction; OR,
  • Commit a lawful act that might cause death; AND,
  • Act with gross negligence; AND,
  • Cause the death of another person.

Defining “Vehicular Manslaughter” Under California Penal Code §192(c)(1)

To convict you under CPC §192(c)(1), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • DROVE VEHICLE/OPERATED VESSEL: You drove a vehicle or operated a vessel; AND,
  • MISDEMEANOR OR INFRACTION: You committed a misdemeanor or an infraction; OR,
  • LAWFUL ACT/MIGHT CAUSE DEATH: You committed an otherwise lawful act that might cause death; AND,
  • GROSS NEGLIGENCE: You committed the misdemeanor or the infraction or the otherwise lawful act that might cause death with gross negligence;[2] AND,
  • CAUSED DEATH: Your grossly negligent conduct caused[3] the death of another person.

Note: Being charged under Section 192(c) will not exclude a possible Murder charge (CPC §187(a)).

Example: Defendant Danica drove her car in a drag race on Topanga Canyon Road. She collided with Victim Vern's car while she was traveling at high speed. The accident killed Vern. Police, learning that Danica had a personal grievance against Vern, recommend charges under Section 192(c) and Section 187(a). Danica insists this makes no sense. She says she can't be charged like this. Is Danica correct?

Conclusion: Danica drove illegally in a way that would violate speeding laws. She caused Vern's death thereby, an act of gross negligence. These are the elements of one of the charges. But Danica believes that prosecutors cannot charge her both with an offense requiring malice aforethought (Murder) and one requiring no malice. However, the statute makes it clear that this can occur. Danica is incorrect. 

Penalties For Vehicular Manslaughter Under CPC §192(c)(1)

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

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

As stated previously, the prosecution can charge you with a felony or misdemeanor count of Vehicular Manslaughter, depending on the facts of the case, making it a “wobbler”[6] crime. If you're convicted of the felony form, you face up to six (6) years in a state prison[7] and a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[8]

Defenses Against California Penal Code §192(c)(1) – Vehicular Manslaughter

Three common defenses against a charge of Vehicular Manslaughter under CPC §192(c)(1) are:

Your Negligence Didn't Cause The Death

Example: Defendant Don is responsible for a car accident with Victim Vera. No one is injured. Later, however, Vera argues about the accident with Husband. He becomes incensed and kills Vera. Police learn of the accident from Husband, who blames Don for Vera's death. Now Don is trying to convince them not to recommend a charge under §192(c). Should Don be charged with Vehicular Manslaughter?

Conclusion: Don's negligence resulted in an accident for which he was responsible. These may be elements of the charge. But Don's accident didn't kill Vera; she was the victim of Husband's act, entirely unrelated to the accident. Thus, one element of the charge is missing. Under these circumstances, a defendant simply cannot be guilty. Don shouldn't be charged. His negligence didn't cause the death.

You Didn't Act With Gross Negligence

Example: Defendant Dee is driving along Pico Boulevard. She's obeying the speed limit. She stops at red lights and doesn't proceed until they're green and the ways are clear. But, passing through an intersection, she glances down at her phone. Victim Vero runs a red light and strikes her car at the same moment. Vero is killed. Now Dee faces a charge under CPC §192(c). Should Dee be convicted?

Conclusion: Dee committed a negligent act while driving a car, a lawful act which can produce death. The accident caused Vero's death. These may be elements of the charge. But Dee's only problematic act was glancing at a phone. She didn't speed, she obeyed traffic laws, and she didn't strike Vero's vehicle; it was the other way around. Dee, it follows, shouldn't be convicted. She didn't act with gross negligence.

You Were Acting Reasonably In An Emergency

Example: Defendant Danny is driving at a safe speed along a residential street when Neighbor's car bursts out of her driveway, heading towards Danny's driver side door at a high speed. Desperate to protect himself from being crushed, Danny pulls the vehicle to the opposite side of the street. Victim Vee is in its path. Vee is killed. Now Danny faces a charge under §192(c). Should Danny be convicted?

Conclusion: Danny was behaving in a lawful manner when Neighbor committed a dangerous - and likely unlawful - act. This shocked Danny into a natural act of self-protection: he turned away from the threat. Sadly, Vee was in the same path. But her killing was never anticipated. Given that Danny can't be asked to passively accept being crushed, he shouldn't be convicted. He was acting reasonably in an emergency.

Related Offenses

Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §192(c) 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)),  Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)), 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;[9] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[10]

Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[11] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[12]

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 Derrek is a licensed lifeguard who swore an oath to provide services to any person who needs to be rescued from drowning, no matter where or how. But Derrek has lately been working very hard. Thus, when he goes to a party, he doesn't assist when Victim Val falls into a pool. She drowns. Now Derrek is facing a charge under §187(a). He insists that that he can't be guilty. Is Derrek correct?

Conclusion: Derrek was under an assumed legal duty to help “any person who needs to be rescued from drowning, no matter where or how.” The duty wasn't subject to qualification based on how hard he had been working. The result of his inaction in the face of Val's drowning was her death. The decision not to help was thus malicious under the circumstances. Derrek, it follows, should be convicted. He is incorrect.

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[13] 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[14] 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;[15] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[16]

DUI Murder is also punished under California's “Three Strikes” system.[17] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[18]

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 Demi was convicted of driving under the influence of narcotics. A year after, she drove while drunk. She nearly hit two cars in traffic. She almost struck a parked third car. Then she got into an accident that killed Victim Vin. Now she faces a charge under CPC §§187(a), 189 (a),(b). Demi insists that she can't be guilty because her prior conviction wasn't alcohol-related. Is Demi correct?

Conclusion: Demi drove illegally. She had sufficient forewarning to know that her driving was so dangerous as to threaten life owing to three near-accidents. Thus, the act was impliedly malicious. The act also led to a death and Demi had no legal excuse for any of this. These are the elements of the crime. Demi wrongly believes that drug offenses aren't equally considered “DUI” convictions. Demi is incorrect.

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;[19] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[20]

Attempted Murder is also punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[21] If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in prison.[22]

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 admits to pulling his vehicle out of its parking spot at high speed while Victim Vic walked behind the car. He admits that he had to slam on his brakes, and that if he hadn't, he would have killed Vic. Nonetheless, he insists that he can't be guilty under §§187(a), 664(a) because he didn't know Vic was present when he pulled out and he braked when he saw Vic. Should Dallas be convicted?   

Conclusion: Dallas took a direct step towards killing Vic when pulling out of the spot. (He admits as much when he says he would've killed Vic if he hadn't stopped.) The step was ineffective owing to Dallas's stopping the car. These are elements of the charge. But Dallas didn't know Vic was present when he pulled out. He stopped as soon as he did. Thus, he didn't intend to kill Vic. Dallas should be acquitted.

Voluntary Manslaughter

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.”[23]

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

  • A term of up to eleven (11) years in a state prison;[24] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[25]

Furthermore, Voluntary Manslaughter is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[26] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[27]

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 Dixie catches her neighbor's adult Daughter in bed with Victim Vee, her girlfriend, when Dixie visits their LA home. Dixie is violently opposed to same sex relationships. She loses control over herself and kills Vee. Now she faces a charge under CPC §192(a). Should Dixie be convicted?

Conclusion: Dixie says she acted under intense emotion that obscured her reasoning. This would be an element of the offense. But most persons in modern Los Angeles wouldn't consider walking in on a same sex couple who have no relation to themselves to be sufficient provocation to satisfy the statute. Thus, Dixie legally premeditated the killing. Dixie is innocent - because she should be charged with murder.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter (CPC §192(b)) involves killing a human being or a fetus while committing an unlawful act not amounting to a felony or killing while committing a lawful act which might produce death and acting unlawfully or without due caution.

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

  • A term of up to four (4) years in a state prison;[28] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[29]

California Jury Instructions – Involuntary Manslaughter

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

You committed a crime or a lawful act in an unlawful manner. You also committed the crime or act with criminal negligence. Finally, your act caused the death of another person.

Example: Defendant Darian tries to steal Victim Vasily's small handgun, worth no more than $150. When Vasily encounters her in the midst of the theft, they struggle over the weapon. A round is fired. Vasily is killed. Now, facing a charge under §192(b), Darian defends herself by saying that she was committing a felony at the time, irrespective of the modest value of the pistol, so she can't be guilty. Is she correct?   

Conclusion: Darian committed a crime resulting in Vasily's death. It was, therefore, criminally negligent behavior. These are elements of the charge.  Additionally, property theft is usually not felonious under $950 in value.[30] This would be the final element; the offense has to be less serious than a felony. But firearm theft is always considered felonious in California.[31] Darian is correct. She isn't guilty as charged.

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts constituting assaults can result in deaths punishable under Section 192(c).

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 approaching a group of people and making them believe he was about to douse them with a bucketful of filthy water. Victim Veronica was one of the persons in the group. She presses charges of violating CPC §240 against Dane. He says that he can't be guilty because he actually gestured at a whole group, not a specific person. Should Dane be convicted or is he correct?

Conclusion: Dane willfully performed an act which would direct and probably result in the use of force against Veronica. He clearly understood the facts of the situation. He also had the present ability to use force and didn't have a legal excuse for what he did. These are the elements of the crime. Assaulting a group only allows the whole group to pursue the charge – Veronica included. Dane should be convicted.

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 245(a)(1) may also result in charges under Section 192(c) 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 to assault someone and you weren't acting in self-defense or defense of another person.

Example: Defendant Diego admits that he brandished a sword at Victim Vinton. Diego admits that he wanted Vinton to think that he was about to attack Vinton. He even admits that he had no legal excuse for doing this. Nonetheless, he says that he can't be guilty of a charge under CPC §245(a)(1) because he never got closer to Vinton than fifty feet. (The sword is three feet long.) Is Diego correct, on these facts?

Conclusion: Diego willfully used a deadly weapon so as to cause Vinton to believe he was endangered. Thus, Diego understood the facts of the situation. He also had no legal justification for the attack. These are elements of the charge. But Diego had to have the present ability to inflict damage on Vinton. He couldn't have harmed Vinton from fifty feet with a mere three-foot sword. Diego, it follows, is correct.   

Battery

Battery (CPC §242) involves use of willful and unlawful force on another person. The crime is related to Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 242 may also result in charges under Section 192(c) 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 takes a job as a shopping mall Santa. He has kids sit on his lap and tell him what they want for the holidays. Victim Vince, one such boy, takes exception to being sat on Drake's lap. He cries so much that Parents must take him away. Later, when Drake continues to cry, Parents assume that Drake harmed or offended Vince and have Drake charged under §242. Should Drake be convicted?

Conclusion: Drake willfully touched Vince by allowing Vince to sit on his lap. He wasn't defending himself or disciplining Vince at the time. These are elements of the offense. But Vince was sat on Drake's lap; the facts do not say that Drake did anything more than allow Parents to seat Vince. Thus, Vince's distress must be linked to something other than Drake's inoffensive act. Drake should be acquitted.

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 243(d) may also generate charges under Section 192(c).

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”[36] 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;[37] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[38]

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 participates in roller derby. During one particularly heated match, Deana runs Victim Violet into a wall. Being run into walls is common for roller derby participants. But Violet splits a lip. Furious, she has Deana charged with a crime under CPC §243(d). Deana insists that she hasn't violated the law. Should Deana be convicted, under these circumstances?

Conclusion: Deana willfully touched Violet in a way resulting in injury. This was not done in self-defense, in defense of another, or while disciplining a child. These are elements of the offense. But Violet consented to contact when she participated in a sport in which people are run into walls. Furthermore, a split lip isn't “serious” enough injury for purposes of the law. Deana is correct. She should be acquitted. 

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate Section 273d(a) may also result in charges under Section 192(c) 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”[39] 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.[40]

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 DJ punishes Victim Virgil, his young son, by making him watch horror films. Virgil is terrified by them. DJ knows this. When Virgil's Mother, DJ's ex-wife, learns what DJ is doing, Mother presses charges against DJ for violating CPC §273d(a). DJ insists that he has the right to discipline their son. Should DJ be convicted of the charge or is he correct about the situation?

Conclusion: DJ willfully took a decision that could be described as cruel or inhuman by compelling young Virgil to watch horror films. He knew how strongly Virgil dislikes the films. Assuming that making Virgil watch the films is cruel or inhuman, the act exceeds the scope of conduct permissible in disciplining Virgil. These are elements of the offense. But Virgil suffered no physical injury. DJ should be acquitted.

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate §273a(a) may also result in charges under §192(c) 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”[41] 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;[42] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[43]

Child Endangerment is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system.[44] If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison.[45]

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 babysits Victim Villem for the first time. Five-year-old Villem lives in a very large house. Douglass wasn't given a tour of the home. Thinking Villem is playing in his room, there's an hours-long period in which Douglass doesn't see Villem. Later, however, he discovers that Villem locked himself inside a room in a wing of the house that Douglass never saw. Is Douglass guilty under §273a(a)?

Conclusion: Douglass had responsibility for Villem's care and wasn't disciplining Villem when the boy got locked in the room. These are elements of the crime. But Villem wasn't in a dangerous situation; he was in his own house. Villem didn't suffer nor was he injured while locked inside the room. Finally, Douglass wasn't shown the room; thus, he couldn't have been negligent in allowing Villem inside it. He's innocent.

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate §273.5(a) may also result in charges under §192(c) 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”[46] 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.[47]

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 gets into a car accident. Little does she know that the person driving the other car is Victim Velma, her ex-wife. The accident takes Velma's life. Velma's furious Parents press charges against Di under CPC §273.5(a) for willfully killing their daughter, Di's former spouse. Di claims that she cannot be guilty under these circumstances. Should Di be convicted or is she innocent?

Conclusion: Di was involved in an incident which took the life of her former spouse. Di wasn't defending herself or someone else at the time. These are elements of the offense. But Di didn't kill Velma willfully; she didn't even know that Velma was driving the other car in the accident. Thus, an element of the offense can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. On these facts, Di must be acquitted of the crime.

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate CPC §243(e)(1) may also result in charges under CPC §192(c) 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).[48]

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 is furious with Victim Vinny, his ex-husband, over what Devers considers to be an unfair support obligation. Devers doesn't believe he should have to pay. He takes to expressing his ire by ramming his car into the side of Vinny's vehicle. Vinny isn't inside it at the time. But when Vinny learns of the incident, he presses charges against Devers for violating CPC §243(e)(1). Is Devers guilty?

Conclusion: Devers willfully touched Vinny's property in a harmful manner. Vinny is Devers's ex-spouse. Devers wasn't defending himself or someone else at the time. These are elements of the offense. But Vinny wasn't inside his car when Devers struck it; otherwise, this would be a form of battery (touching something so close to Vinny as to be an extension of his person). Therefore, Devers must be innocent.

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 Vehicular Manslaughter because acts that would violate CPC §191.5(a) may also result in charges under CPC §192(c) 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”[49] 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;[50] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[51]

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 is nineteen years of age. He and Friend drink alcohol one night. Dick drives home. He speeds along a road with shallow street lights. As a result, he doesn't see Victim Valencia's car. He strikes it and kills Valencia. Later, when he's charged under §191.5(a), Dick insists that he can't be proven guilty because his blood alcohol level wasn't determined to be 0.08 or higher. Is Dick correct?

Conclusion: Dick drove under the influence of alcohol. He sped, which wouldn't be a felony offense. He drove carelessly under dangerous circumstances resulting in a death – in other words, with gross negligence. These are elements of the offense. The question is whether Dick's blood alcohol level had to be 0.08 or higher. As a minor, driving with any amount of alcohol in his system is illegal. Dick is incorrect.

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

The State of California treats Vehicular Manslaughter as an exceptionally serious offense. If you're charged with Vehicular 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, Vehicular 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] See “Wobbler Law and Legal Definition” at USLegal.com.    

[2] “Gross 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 gross 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. [¶] Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 592 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[3] “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 592 (CALCRIM) (2022).

[4] See California Penal Code [CPC] §193 (c) (1). 

[5] See CPC §672.

[6] See Endnote 1.    

[7] See Endnote 4.

[8] See Endnote 5.

[9] See CPC §190 (a).

[10] See Endnote 5.

[11] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (1).  

[12] See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).  

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

[14]  See CPC §188 (a) (2).

[15] See Endnote 9.

[16] See Endnote 5.

[17] See Endnote 11.

[18] See Endnote 12.

[19] See CPC §664 (a).

[20] See Endnote 5.

[21] See CPC §667.5 (c) (7).

[22] See Endnote 12.

[23] See CPC §192 (a).

[24] See CPC §193 (a).

[25] See Endnote 5.

[26] See Endnote 11.

[27] See Endnote 12.

[28] See CPC §193 (b).

[29] See Endnote 5.

[30] See CPC §487 (a).

[31] See CPC §487 (d) (2). 

[32] See CPC §19.

[33] See Endnote 1.    

[34] See CPC §245 (a) (1).

[35] See CPC §243 (a).

[36] See Endnote 1.

[37] See CPC §243 (d).

[38] See Endnote 5.

[39] See Endnote 1.

[40] See CPC §273d (a).

[41] See Endnote 1.

[42] See CPC §273a (a).

[43] See Endnote 5.

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

[45] See Endnote 12.

[46] See Endnote 1.

[47] See Endnote 40

[48] See CPC §243 (e) (1).

[49] See Endnote 1.

[50] See CPC §191.5 (c) (1).

[51] See Endnote 5.

Menu