Negligent homicide or terrible mistake?

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Yeah and Britannica was hand written by third world impoverished orphans who can't afford keyboards. This is basic CJ 100 stuff. Criminal Negligence is a part of Vehicular Homicide. If you purposefully use a car to kill someone it's First Degree Murder.

I cannot think of a singular case wherein a person was actually convicted on either vehicular manslaughter or homicide for making a mistake in traffic. My best friends wife ALMOST killed herself, her 5 year old child and the guy that T-boned her when she fell asleep and cruised into a busy morning rush hour intersection. Talked to him a few hours ago. He said they didn't even issue a ticket.

I tried for some time to find even 1 example of such, and I found nothing. In EVERY single case I come across, there is something to show gross criminal negligence. Maybe if someone could cite precedent, I would believe it. Until then, I would say that a prosecutor will not seek charges unless there is criminal negligence involved. (suspended license, intoxication, excessive speed)

[tinybear]

Motor manslaughter or for that matter any case of manslaughter by negligence is a serious offense. Hence any simple mistake or slight carelessness is probably insufficient to found a charge. Gross negligence has to be proved.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ruksak I cannot think of a singular case wherein a person was actually convicted on either vehicular manslaughter or homicide for making a mistake in traffic. My best friends wife ALMOST killed herself, her 5 year old child and the guy that T-boned her when she fell asleep and cruised into a busy morning rush hour intersection. Talked to him a few hours ago. He said they didn't even issue a ticket. I tried for some time to find even 1 example of such, and I found nothing. In EVERY single case I come across, there is something to show gross criminal negligence. Maybe if someone could cite precedent, I would believe it. Until then, I would say that a prosecutor will not seek charges unless there is criminal negligence involved. (suspended license, intoxication, excessive speed)

I know a woman through my mom who plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter in an accident that was her fault. I will grant you that she was more broken up by the fact that she killed someone than by her punishment by the state. Nevertheless, the legal interpretation is pretty straight forward.

[ruksak]

Originally this thread was meant to address whether or not people should go to prison for making a mistake, no matter how horrible the outcome.

Given the information that is spilling out about this "mother" and her apparent disdain for motherhood, I am viewing her mistake as more caused by, as many others pointed out to me, lack of due diligence in caring for her child.

Until I had reason to believe this, I simply didn't. Now it has smacked me in the face as I read thought he articles on this case.

As to the issue of negligence as has been discussed. I simply do not think people should be imprisoned for making honest mistakes, no matter how horrible the outcome. Even if a traffic violation occurred. If it was an honest mistake, as opposed to purposeful disregard for traffic laws, then no charges will be sought.

So when Isherwood said "The law makes no regard for mistakes". I disagree. They do. Otherwise I'd be finding some examples of people going to prison for spacing out and causing a serious accident. All I see are civil cases, not criminal.

Disagree? Cite precedent.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I know a woman through my mom who plead guilty to the charge of manslaughter in an accident that was her fault. I will grant you that she was more broken up by the fact that she killed someone than by her punishment by the state. Nevertheless, the legal interpretation is pretty straight forward.

If there is no criminal negligence, it becomes a civil case. Cite precedent and I'll bite. I'd be intrigued to hear more DETAIL about the case you cited. I know if her license was suspended, she didn't have a license, was speeding or some other extenuating circumstance was applicable then she can be charged with a criminal violation. Otherwise its a civil matter.

[tinybear]

Quote by: ruksak Originally this thread was meant to address whether or not people should go to prison for making a mistake, no matter how horrible the outcome. Given the information that is spilling out about this "mother" and her apparent disdain for motherhood, I am viewing her mistake as more caused by, as many others pointed out to me, lack of due diligence in caring for her child. Until I had reason to believe this, I simply didn't. Now it has smacked me in the face as I read thought he articles on this case. As to the issue of negligence as has been discussed. I simply do not think people should be imprisoned for making honest mistakes, no matter how horrible the outcome. Even if a traffic violation occurred. If it was an honest mistake, as opposed to purposeful disregard for traffic laws, then no charges will be sought. So when Isherwood said "The law makes no regard for mistakes". I disagree. They do. Otherwise I'd be finding some examples of people going to prison for spacing out and causing a serious accident. All I see are civil cases, not criminal. Disagree? Cite precedent.

Can't say I disagree. You're pretty close to the mark. Not any mistake is a cause for criminal prosecution. The mistake must involve reckless or grossly negligent conduct.

[Jack]

An example from the Connecticut state penal code:

Sec. 53a-6. Effect of ignorance or mistake. (a) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief of fact, unless: (1) Such factual mistake negates the mental state required for the commission of an offense; or (2) the statute defining the offense or a statute related thereto expressly provides that such factual mistake constitutes a defense or exemption; or (3) such factual mistake is of a kind that supports a defense of justification. (b) A person shall not be relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless (1) the law provides that the state of mind established by such mistaken belief constitutes a defense, or unless (2) such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of law contained in a statute or other enactment, an administrative order or grant of permission, a judicial decision of a state or federal court, or an interpretation of the statute or law relating to the offense, officially made or issued by a public servant, agency or body legally charged or empowered with the responsibility or privilege of administering, enforcing or interpreting such statute or law. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 6.) Defendant entitled as matter of law to a theory of defense instruction when evidence of defense under this section is placed before jury. 178 C. 704. Cited. 199 C. 537. Cited. 204 C. 240. Cited. 209 C. 75. Subsec. (a): Subdiv. (1) cited. 198 C. 454. Subdiv. (3) cited. Id. Cited. 210 C. 132. When mistake of fact defense arises and when jury instruction re mistake of fact is required. 246 C. 268. Subsec. (b): Cited. 17 CA 326.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Isherwood An example from the Connecticut state penal code:

This is addressing "ignorance of the law", is it not?

[ZNFYRH]

It is.

And here's the subsequent rationale...

You might try to argue that a person could honestly break a law as a mistake, not realizing they were breaking the law.

That doesn't make you exempt from consequence.

If you were aware of the law and broke it accidentally... that's negligence.

If you weren't aware of the law and broke it, accidentally or intentionally, you are fall under the "ignorance is no excuse".

[ruksak]

I've had ignorance of the law bite me in the ass before.

A few years back they changed the Hunter Orange law after decades of it being set on a different date. It used to be in Indiana that you need not wear hunter orange until the start of gun season for deer. November 15th I believe. Without the knowledge that they changed it, I went into the woods to hunt squirrel and scout for deer sign about 5 days before gun season. Apparently the hunter orange law had kicked in on that day. I was issued a $90 ticket. ARGH! @#*!*ers.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ruksak Originally this thread was meant to address whether or not people should go to prison for making a mistake, no matter how horrible the outcome. Given the information that is spilling out about this "mother" and her apparent disdain for motherhood, I am viewing her mistake as more caused by, as many others pointed out to me, lack of due diligence in caring for her child. Until I had reason to believe this, I simply didn't. Now it has smacked me in the face as I read thought he articles on this case. As to the issue of negligence as has been discussed. I simply do not think people should be imprisoned for making honest mistakes, no matter how horrible the outcome. Even if a traffic violation occurred. If it was an honest mistake, as opposed to purposeful disregard for traffic laws, then no charges will be sought. So when Isherwood said "The law makes no regard for mistakes". I disagree. They do. Otherwise I'd be finding some examples of people going to prison for spacing out and causing a serious accident. All I see are civil cases, not criminal. Disagree? Cite precedent.

There are plenty of examples of precedent in this case, but citing them is irrelevant. It spells out verbatim in these laws that an accident of the caliber of criminal negligence is not an affirmative defense.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: ruksak Disagree? Cite precedent.

Here is something I found on a quick search. If this woman was convicted, as the article says she was, then how can we not convict in this new negligent homicide case?

Also, nobody has yet addressed the problem of the "I forgot" and the "I made a mistake" defense in dealing with actual malicious criminals that intended to murder their victims.

Young mother convicted of criminally negligent homicide in her baby's death
New York authorities victimize the victim
By Allen Whyte
22 May 1999

A 12-person jury in the Bronx, New York state supreme court found a young mother on welfare guilty of criminally negligent homicide Wednesday in the death of her infant son. The defendant, Tabitha Walrond, 21, could receive as much as four years in prison when she faces sentencing on June 30. The jury acquitted her on the more serious charge of second-degree manslaughter, for which she could have received a maximum penalty of 15 years.

The Bronx District Attorney brought these charges against Ms. Walrond to cover up the state's responsibility for the death of her seven-week-old son Tyler, who died of malnutrition on August 27, 1997. Tabitha Walrond was 19 when she gave birth to Tyler, and breast-fed him every day because, as she testified in court, she was told that this was the best method of caring for her child. She took natural childbirth classes on a regular basis in preparation for delivery. However she was never told that breast reduction surgery that she had undergone at age 15 put her at great risk of not being able to provide sufficient nutrition for the infant. Furthermore, she never got the medical care for her son to which she was legally entitled under the Medicaid program.

In a cruel and bizarre turn of events, a young mother who has lost her child as a result of cuts in medical benefits for the poor now faces the prospect of prison time. The prosecution in Tabitha Walrond's case sought to made an example of the young woman, demonizing her as a monster who willfully neglected and starved her infant in retaliation against her former boyfriend, the father of the child, who left her for another woman.

But Tabitha's testimony at the trial showed her to be a loving mother, not a criminal. She described her frantic attempts to save her child on the day he died. She cried on the witness stand as she described how she found Tyler looking lifeless and foaming at the mouth, and rushed him in a cab to the hospital. She rapped on the taxi's partition, urging the driver to speed up. She cried, "Hurry up, something is wrong with my baby, something is wrong with my baby." She tried to convince the driver to run through red lights, but it was too late. "He left me, he died in the cab. I felt him leave."

During the three-week trial the prosecution sadistically displayed a series of pictures of the infant, showing him at the beginning and end of his short life. Ms. Walrond broke down in tears as the photos were shown a video monitor. When she was asked to look at the pictures she said, "Now I see the difference in the pictures, but no, when he was in front of me, I didn't see the difference."

Defense witness Dr. Stepehen Ajl, chairmen of the child abuse committee at Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn, testified after examining all of medical records, including the pictures, that there had been no child abuse or neglect in this case. Other pediatricians with expertise in lactation testified that Ms. Walrond did not realize that her previous breast reduction surgery put her at risk of not supplying adequate nutrition for her infant.

Tabitha Walrond's case is almost identical to that of Tatiana Cheeks, a 21-year-old welfare recipient in Brooklyn, who also breast-fed her baby and lost her six-week-old infant due to malnutrition. She was also denied proper examinations for her child entitled to her under Medicaid. However in Ms. Cheeks case the Brooklyn District attorney decided not to prosecute. The verdict in Ms. Walrond's case has now set a precedent for future prosecutions of similar victims of New York's attack on welfare benefits.

Both of these tragedies were the result of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's deliberate policy of making welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid assistance as difficult to obtain as possible. As a result of a lawsuit brought forward by advocates of the poor, a federal judge has ordered the city to end its illegal obstruction tactics. However, an audit of New York welfare centers has indicated that the same tactics used to deny benefits have continued despite the federal ruling.

Mayor Giuliani is not alone in the US in his efforts to slash aid to the needy. A recent report by Families USA concludes that 675,000 people, 420,000 of them children, have lost Medicaid coverage nationwide as an direct consequence of the federal welfare laws passed in 1996. Many states and municipalities have utilized the cuts in welfare benefits to illegally reduce Medicaid benefits as well. Families USA has criticized the Clinton administration for not enforcing the law that guarantees medical benefits to the needy, which he is required to do, but seeking rather to persuade state and local officials to do so.

Assistant District Attorney Robert Holdman said in his closing argument, "This is not a case about a failure of the system. What failed here is the defendant. She failed her son." In the press conference after the trial Bronx District Attorney Robert T. Johnson summed up the attitude of the prosecution when he said, "How can you imagine any mother seeing her child like that and not absolutely jumping up and down in the emergency room saying, 'Look at my child'?" Defense attorneys Susan Tipograph and Roma Baran did not challenge the prosecution's claim that Ms. Walrond had failed Tyler, but argued that it was not criminal negligence, but rather a tragedy caused by the health care system, and the failings of Tabitha's own mother.

After the closing arguments, it took the jury only two and half hours to reach its verdict. They rejected the prosecution's charge that Ms. Walrond deliberately starved her infant in a rage of jealousy against her former boyfriend, and therefore found her not guilty of manslaughter. They accepted, however, the prosecution's argument that the defendant had individual responsibility for her son's death, and therefore found her guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: ruksak Disagree? Cite precedent.

How about this one? A little old lady that had suffered numerous strokes is off to the pen too.

Driver guilty of negligent homicide in bicyclist's death
Verdict is a message to motorists, brother of Josie Johnson says

By Joseph M. Dougherty
Deseret Morning News
Published: December 23, 2005

WEST JORDAN — An eight-person jury found Elizabeth M. DeSeelhorst guilty of negligent criminal homicide Thursday after deliberating five hours.
"It was a hard conclusion to come to," Brent Bedke, juror No. 5, told the Deseret Morning News. "But the facts speak for themselves."

Shortly after the verdict was read, DeSeelhorst was hustled out of the courtroom and onto an elevator. She and her attorneys, Greg Skordas and Rebecca Hyde, left without commenting on the verdict.

DeSeelhorst hit and killed bicyclist Josie Johnson in Big Cottonwood Canyon Sept. 18, 2004.

Johnson's family, who may file a civil suit against DeSeelhorst, was pleased with the verdict.

"I have no ill feelings toward (DeSeelhorst)," said Ken Johnson, Josie Johnson's brother. "In fact, I have sympathy for her. She probably had as many sleepless nights as we have."

But the verdict sends a message to motorists, he said.

"If you strike or injure or kill a cyclist, there is a consequence," Ken Johnson said.

Utah bicyclists took up the cause of bicycle safety after Johnson's death by organizing bike rides called Josie Rides, the second of which, in October, had more than 1,000 participating cyclists, said Bob Springmeyer, a cyclist who helped organize the first two Josie Rides.

The Utah Legislature enacted HB49 in May, making it the law for drivers to stay at least 3 feet away from cyclists unless road conditions force them closer together.

Johnson, 27, was hit from behind while she rode about 18 inches to the left of the white fog line at the road's edge. During the trial, crash investigators testified that DeSeelhorst's Jeep was straddling that line when she hit Johnson.

Springmeyer was among a handful of cycling enthusiasts who sat through three days of testimony in 3rd District Court.

Many others followed the three-day trial, expecting that a not-guilty verdict would have set a precedent in car-vs.-bicycle legal cases.

"If the case was lost, it would be almost impossible to bring prosecution on any other case . . . because they're difficult cases to prove," Springmeyer said, citing two car-versus-bicycle crashes in southern Utah that were never followed by prosecution.

"I hope that coming out of it, some people are going to learn that you have to respect cyclists," Springmeyer said.

DeSeelhorst testified Wednesday she didn't remember driving outside of her lane and directly into the rear of Johnson's bike.

But after the crash, when Salt Lake County sheriff's deputies arrived, DeSeelhorst indicated on a witness statement that she had seen the cyclist and moved out of the way. The deputies who investigated the crash testified that what DeSeelhorst wrote as her statement didn't happen.

"She (DeSeelhorst) did nothing to avoid her," deputy district attorney Chris Bown said during closing arguments. "That, ladies and gentlemen, is criminal negligence."

DeSeelhorst suffered a stroke in 1991 and a ministroke, or transient ischemic attack, in 1994. Since then, she has suffered numerous smaller strokes that she was unaware of until being examined by LDS Hospital chief of neurology Dr. John Foley. She is on two medications, an anti-coagulant and an anti-seizure medication. She has since surrendered her driver's license.

DeSeelhorst had the mental ability to pull her Jeep to the side of the road after the crash, Bown said. She knew to call her husband, the president of Solitude Mountain Resort, and asked him to summon the resort's emergency medical technicians. She had the presence of mind to tell people arriving on the scene that she probably shouldn't be talking to them. She knew what direction she was traveling. And she knew she had had at least one stroke and memory loss in the past, Bown said.

"That shows a clear understanding of what just happened," he said. "For how much she drives the canyon, for how much she sees bikers, that was a risk that she should have been aware of . . . that's the gross deviation."

Bedke said most of the six remaining jurors — two were released as alternates before deliberations started — went into deliberations with open minds.

What followed was five hours of respectful debate, Bedke said.

"Nobody was pressured to make their decision," he said.

He said Foley's testimony about DeSeelhorst's neurology was a huge part of the defense's case, but it was overcome by the inconsistencies between DeSeelhorst's testimony and her statement to deputies last year.

"The facts supported the state," he said.

Third District Court Judge Royal Hansen set a sentencing date of Feb. 3 at 8:30 a.m. and told DeSeelhorst to not operate a motor vehicle.

[ruksak]

The first example regarding the baby seems as if she was guilty of gross negligence. Not really what I was asking for. Her baby was obviously emaciated and visibly deteriorating. They throw people in prison doing this to animals, let alone human babies.


The second example you gave is more what I was looking for. However its more complicated than just running a red light or merging without seeing a person in your blind spot, truly innocent mistakes. This lady plowed over a biker that was right in front of her. Lied about the details and appears to have been heavily medicated.

As I said, I simply cannot find an example of someone making a mistake and going to prison for it, in regards to traffic. I have seen plenty of cases where parents get in trouble for leaving a gun accessible to their child and the like. Which is more negligent than it is a "mistake".

[ZNFYRH]

ruksak

Check any of the multitude of cases involving elderly drivers that inspired new re-testing laws.

The one I remember is an old lady panicking and hitting the gas instead of the brake.

The only thing that kept her out of prison was her age. She did get some kind of house arrest.