New Crimea Citys DA wants to prosecute Defendant for Involuntary Manslaughter

tte
125.65 INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
1. A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when he recklessly causes the
death of another human being
2. Involuntary manslaughter is a class C felony.
vs

125.75 Criminally Negligent Homicide

1. A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when he negligently causes
the death of another human being.
2. Criminally negligent homicide is a class D felony.

15.05(3) Recklessly
A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a
statute defining an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstances exists.

The risk must be of such nature (words that describe nature) and degree (which is
measured by degree of substantial and unjustifiable) that its conscious disregard
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person
would observe in the actors situation.

1. Defednants actus reus created a risk of causing the death of another person
2. The risk [of causing the death of another person] was substaintial
3. The risk [of causing the death of another person] was unjustifiable
4. Defendant was aware of the risk of causing the death of another person.
5. (*Prosecution must prove that D had a conscious disregard of that risk*) D
consciously disregarded the risk of casuing a human death
6. Considering the nature and degree of the risk, Ds disgregard of the risk
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable
person would obse in the situation.
a. What circumstances count as part of the situation?
b. What is the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe
in the situation?
c. Considering the nature and degree of the risk, was Ds disregard of such a
risk a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation.
Additional rules governing actus reus:
a. There must be a temporal concurrence between Ds actus reus and the required
mens rea.
a. P must porve that at the time of his actus reus, D was AWARE of acting with
the required mens rea.
 Strategically better to assert a broader time frame

b. For homicide, there must be a causal connection between Ds actus reus and the
death at issue.
a. P must prove that BUT FOR Ds actus reus, the relevant death would not have
occurred.

In pursuing a charge of Involuntary Manslaughter against the defendant, Vance Viejo

(VV), what arguments about the facts should the Prosecution rely to establish
Defendants actus reus?

Well first of all, P must prove that:

1. Ds BASE jump created a risk of causing the death of VV. [conduct]
a. He did so knowingly and/or intentionally [CMS]
2. The risk of causing the death of VV was substantial
a. It is not enough to just say, the risk of causing a death
3. The risk of causing the death of VV was unjustifiable

After proving the existence of a risk, the next steps are:

4. The D was aware of the risk of causing the death of VV.

Afterwards, Prosecution must prove that D had a conscious disregard of that

risk:
5. D consciously disregarded the risk of causing a human death
6. Considering the nature and degree of the risk, Ds disregard of the risk constitute
a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would
observe in the situation.

7.

Must state elements in order to prove and to move forward with Ds prosecution
1. What is the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise?
2. Considering the nature of the risk, was Ds disregard of such risk a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in
the situation?

(from People v. Hall) Element #5: Considering the nature and degree of the risk, Ds disregard of
the risk constitute a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
would observe in the situation.

- What is the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise?

o What kind of fascts would the prosecutor rely on to establish a standard of
care that ordinary person would exercise?
Figure out the Industry Standard
Figure out from Expert Witnesses
 o Point is: Tort theory is available to help you prove this

A person consciously disregards a risk when _________ (discuss legal and

conceptual meaning of consciously disregarding a risk.

In this case, this legal meaning can be addressed with the facts that

Recklessly The Elements Defined

What specific facts should the Prosecution rely to establish Ds actus reus? Explain
your reasiing as to why these facts could satisfy the legal reqmtns governing actus reus.

I. In order to establish Defendants actus reus, Prosecution can rely on the legally
relevant facts that help to assess the whether a risk is substantial.
A. Standard of Care.
1) Footnote #1, describes the nature of the conduct of BASE Jumping,
which is considered an Extreme Sport. This activity is more dangerous
than ordinary skydiving, and even more dangerous that standard BASE
jumping is BASE dive-flying which involves wearing a wing-suit. The
most extreme version is BASE proximity flying which is differentiated
from BASE dive-flying in that the first goal of the latter is to create
separation from fixed objects and exit points, in order to deploy a
parachute in a hazard free area.
2) Defendant identifies himself as a thrill-seeking, Proximity Flying,
B.A.S.E. jumper. I.e. Not your ordinary sky-diver.
3) Thus, because of these dangerous circumstances, one can infer that
BASE jumping creates the risk of causing the death of another human
being.
B. The time and date of the jump will also be useful in making the argument that
Defendant disregarded the risk he was creating because an ordinary person
would have known better to create the risk at a peak time when the likelihood of
people being on the streets was very high. The buildings surveillance camera
shows that he made his jump at around 5:30pm on a Friday, a very high
vehicular and pedestrian traffic time, based on the fact that this occurred in
Downtown New Crimea City. Additionally, within two blocks of the Commerce
Tower, there was public transportation, four subway lines, served by twelve
different entrance areas. Unless September 24, 2016 was a state or federal
holiday in which many people did not have to go to work, one could reasonably
assume that there would not be many people out on the streets, and thus the
likelihood of creating the risk of causing another persons death would have been
reduced.

C. Facts which are related to the chains of causation

 1) For example, after Defendant pulled the rip-cord for his parachute at
about two hundred feet from the floor, witnesses at the relevant time of
his jump saw Defendant moving at an angle of about forty-five degrees.

II. The risk of causing the death of another person was substantial.
1) Whether a risk is substantial must be determined by assessing both the
likelihood that harm will occur and the magnitude of the harm should it
occur. (P<BL; Learned Hands Formula for cost/ benefit risk analysis)
2) Trigger Words: High / Low indicate the degree of risk of substantiality;
More / Less; legal consequences not___, a greater/ lesser tendency
towards reaching a legal conclusion.
3) In the Hall case, trial judge said that the issue of law/ statutory issue of
interpretation was using the correct definition of substantial. Judge
Bender defined substantial to mean the same as probability. However,
appellate court disagreed.

(How do you assess?)

4) The greater the risk of harm, and the greater the harm risked, the stronger
the basis for finding the risk to qualify as substantial
i. The greater the nature of the harm risked, the stronger [the
tendency] the basis of finding that the risk qualifies as being
substantial.
5) For example in this definition for what it means to create a risk that
qualifies as substantial, we are dealing with a factor concerned with risk of
harm, and the nature of the harm risked.
6) The more/less risk of harm, the stronger the basis of finding that the risk
created qualifies as being substantial.
7) Analytical Sequence for addressing the Magnitude and Likelihood:
i. Magnitude: This sets the minimum threshold to start establishing
in which the risks can occur.
ii. Likelihood: Based off this risk threshold, you can then apply the
varying likelihood
III. The risk of causing the death of another person was unjustifiable.
Do not use: unjustified or not justified. Those have diff meanings.
A. Whether a risk is unjustifiable must be determined by assessing the nature and
purpose of the actors conduct relative to how substantial the risk is.
1) The more substantial the risk created, the more justifiable

IV. Defendant consciously disregarded the risk of causing the death of another
person.
A. Establish an inference linked to a legally critical fact
1. Use circumstantial evidence relevant to prove on fact which provides a
basis from which to conclude (that is, to draw an inference) that another
fact some legally critical fact occurred.
 2. Nature of the inference must be addressed
3. 2 ways for Defense to contest the circumstantial evidentiary proof of
knowledge base.
1) Even if its true that ordinary people use their existing knowledge
basis, they dont always use it!
2) Well, maybe this person (actor of the criminally charged conduct)
is NOT an ordinary person. He is different because of x, y & z.

V. Considering the nature of the risk, Defendants disregard of the risk constitutes(d)
a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise.
1. The risk must be of such a nature that its disregard constitutes a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would
exercise.
2.

At the time of Defendants actus reus, he was aware of the risk he was
creating to people on the street and consciously disregarded that risk.