1

Fact Pattern Analysis

Connor E. Pinney

Department of Criminal Justice & Social Work, Olivet Nazarene University

CJUS 343: Criminal Law

Professor Matthew Adamson

20 November 2020
 2

Fact Pattern Analysis

The defendant described in the fact pattern of People v. Kolzow has had her infant die after it

was left in a vehicle unattended for hours on an August morning. There is a question of which of the

Model Penal Code’s four mental states best describe the defendant’s actions. There is secondarily a

question of how the defendant should be charged based on her actions.

Mental States of the Model Penal Code

The lowest mental state of the Model Penal Code is negligent. The criteria of the mental state of

negligence are that the defendant was not aware of a substantial risk of harm in a situation that a

reasonable person would have been aware of the risk (American Law Institute, 1962/1985). In the case

of People v. Kolzow, the defendant was unaware of the risks faced by leaving an infant unattended in a

vehicle, an awareness that a reasonable person would possess. Her unawareness of the risk is proven by

her unawareness that her child remained in the vehicle.

The next highest mental state described in the Model Penal Code is reckless. This mental state is

characterized by an innate or acquired knowledge of the risk in a situation, and then a conscious

disregard for the risk, choosing instead to further the risk inducing situation (American Law Institute,

1962/1985). In the case of People v. Kolzow, the defendant was aware of the risk associated with leaving

a child in a vehicle, demonstrated by her rush to retrieve the child in the morning. The defendant

consciously chose to leave the child in the vehicle in the evening, in favor of quickly getting to bed.

The second highest mental state detailed in the Model Penal Code is knowing. A knowing crime

is committed by someone certain the negative results will occur (American Law Institute, 1962/1985). In

the case of People v. Kolzow, the defendant had the full knowledge that leaving her child in the vehicle

well into the hot August morning would result in serious injury.
 3

The highest level of the Model Penal Code is purposeful. For a crime to be purposeful, it must be

committed intentionally with the specific goal of the negative outcome (American Law Institute,

1962/1985). In the case of People v. Kolzow, the defendant left her child in the vehicle with the clear

intention of leaving it in the vehicle until it died .

Under the circumstances of the case of People v. Kolzow, the most appropriate charge is one of

negligent homicide. While awareness of risk is hard to determine, it is likely that the defendant was not

aware of the risk of leaving the child that she cared for in her vehicle and was not acting as a reasonable

person. She stayed up nearly all night driving around with her infant, and instead of waking her

stepmother, she parked in a parking lot to read a book at 5:00am. These are not the actions of a

reasonable person.

Defense Against the Charge of Manslaughter

The actus reus on this crime is the same physical action as if it were committed purposefully, the

difference, importantly, lies in the mens rea. In the case of People v. Kolzow, the defendant does not

possess mens rea, or a guilty mind, because the crime was committed negligently. There was not an

intent for the child to die of heat stroke. The actus reus was committed with an unreasonable lack of

awareness of the risks incurred by the situation (Samaha, 2017).

The attendant circumstances of the crime create a picture of a late night that would not be

conducive to rational and reasonable thought. The defendant was awake nearly all of the night, and was

not in a position to be getting the rest needed. The defendant was also suffering from an upset digestive

system. Both of these factors will lead to a lessened reasoning ability. Beyond this, according to the

autopsy, the defendant did not have a record of a mistreatment or disdain for her child, instead the child

was found to have been well cared for. There is no other indication of any malice or disdain the

defendant might have for her child.

 4

While the defendant did commit the actus reus of leaving her child in a vehicle, with fatal

results, her negligence to the risks involved are simply based in a mistake of fact. When the defendant

went to sleep, she believed to the best of her knowledge that her child was inside and safe with her. The

defendant did not understand the circumstances she was operating under, and therefore cannot be held

legally responsible for any crime other than negligent homicide (Shouse California Law Group, 2020).

The burden of production of evidence to bring this case to court has been fulfilled. The

defendant in People v. Kolzow has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of

presenting proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed manslaughter recklessly

falls upon the prosecution. This proof beyond a reasonable doubt of reckless action does not exist in the

fact pattern presented.

The Charge of Negligent Homicide

A defendant has a right to fair trial and a right to be considered innocent until a jury finds proof

beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt in a crime. Society has a right to prosecute and punish individuals

who pose a threat to society. In this case, People v. Kolzow, the defendant does not pose a threat to

society beyond the threat of a single crime committed negligently. In the balance of these entities and

their respective rights, the defendant should only be charged with negligent homicide, as it is the crime

that has been committed and it describes the mental state the defendant was in, and is culpable for.

Only a sentence suitable for the crime of negligent homicide should be given in the case of the People v.

Kolzow.

In 2010 law enforcement officer Johannes Mehserle received a two-year sentence for negligent

homicide when he drew the wrong weapon and killed an individual (People v. mehserle, 2012). This

mistake of fact mirrors the defendant in People v. Kozlow’s lapse in judgement of leaving her child in the

car. In 2013 drunk driver Tommy Morgan received a 12-month sentence for negligent vehicular
 5

homicide (Offices of the United States Attorneys, 2011). This negligent homicide involving a vehicle has

the aggravating factor of drunk driving, but this isn't far from the lack of reasoning skill that can come

from sleep deprivation. Both of these cases have similarities to People v. Kolzow, the former involving a

mistake of fact, and the latter involving a motor vehicle. Due to the similarities between these cases,

and the nature of the defendant’s negligence, a 12-month sentence would be appropriate in the case of

the People v. Kolzow.

 6

References

American Law Institute. (1985). ​Model Penal Code: Official Draft and Explanatory Notes​. The American

Law Institute. (Original work published 1962)

People v. mehserle, (Court of Appeal of California, First District, Division One June 8, 2012).

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1683477496900419028&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vi

s=1&oi=scholarr

Offices of the United States Attorneys. (2011, April 6). Prewitt man receives twelve-month prison

sentence for federal dui-related involuntary manslaughter conviction. ​Department of Justice.​

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-nm/legacy/2014/02/03/2011-04-06_morgan_p

r.pdf

Samaha, J. (2017). ​Criminal law.​ Cengage Learning.

Shouse California Law Group. (2020, October 19). ​Mistake of fact or law as legal defenses to a crime​.

Shouse Law Group. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/legal-defenses/mistake-of-law/