What is the test for instructing a jury on involuntary manslaughter?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Lemus, E062798 (Cal. App. 2016):

"[A] defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence; . . . an erroneous failure to instruct on a lesser included offense constitutes a denial of that right. . . ." (People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 720, overruled on other points in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12,

Page 10

and in People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 176.) "The court must, . . . , instruct the jury on lesser included offenses when there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all the elements of a charged offense are present [citations] and when there is substantial evidence that defendant committed the lesser included offense, which, if accepted by the trier of fact, would exculpate the defendant from guilt of the greater offense." (People v. Cook (2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, 596.)

"The elements of murder are an unlawful killing committed with malice aforethought. [Citation.] The lesser included offense of manslaughter does not include the element of malice, which distinguishes it from the greater offense of murder. [Citation.] One commits involuntary manslaughter either by committing 'an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony' or by committing 'a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.' [Citation.] If the evidence presents a material issue of whether a killing was committed without malice, and if there is substantial evidence defendant committed involuntary manslaughter, failing to instruct on involuntary manslaughter would violate the defendant's constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue. [Citation.] Malice is implied, however, when a killing results from an intentional act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to human life, and the act is deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life." (People v. Cook, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 596.)

Page 11

Other Questions


Can a jury in a personal injury case be found to have erred in instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter through the commission of involuntary manslaughter? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury have a sua sponte duty to instruct on voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and simple assault as lesser included offenses to murder? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the instructions in the context of manslaughter instructions in cases where the instruction was limited or limited? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant be charged with or convicted of involuntary manslaughter under section 192, subd. (b) of the involuntary manslaughter statute? (California, United States of America)
Does the fact that involuntary manslaughter is included within murder justify instruction thereon? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a jury to instruct on either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter in a felony-murder case? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted instruction on involuntary manslaughter? (California, United States of America)
When will a trial court instruct the jury on the defense of unconsciousness and self-defense in a case of involuntary manslaughter? (California, United States of America)
Does the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a diminished capacity defense in the context of involuntary manslaughter? (California, United States of America)
In a second degree murder case, in what circumstances would have been a manslaughter verdict if the jury had been given the same instructions on the subject of murder and manslaughter? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.