Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pennygreen2 sentences2015(See generally People v. Robertson (2004) 34 Cal.4th 156, 164 [second degree murder requires malice aforethought, but not the additional elements of premeditation and deliberation, which elevate a murder to first degree], overruled on other grounds by People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172 ; § 187, subd. (a).) The jury was instructed on first or second degree murder with malice 16 Brandishing a weapon “may be committed by drawing or exhibiting a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.” (People v. Booker, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 189 ; People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 814 .) 17 “ 2010(See People v. Wells, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 988 [misdemeanor causing death must be committed “ ‘through criminal negligence’ ”]; People v. Penny, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 869 [lawful act without due caution and circumspection means with criminal negligence]; People v. Burroughs, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 836 [noninherently dangerous felony committed without due caution and circumspection is involuntary manslaughter].) *1008 Criminal negligence has been defined in a variety of ways. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Butlergreen2 sentences2025(People v. Cox (2000) 23 Cal.4th 665, 672 (Cox) [“‘act’ underlying the offense of involuntary manslaughter ‘must be committed with criminal intent or criminal negligence’”]; People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998, 1007 (Butler) [“criminal negligence is the governing mens rea standard” for first three types of involuntary manslaughter enumerated above].) 4 Defendant’s attacks on the trial court’s reasoning thus provide no basis unto themselves for reversal. 6 We conclude that the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslau 2015Involuntary manslaughter In People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998 (Butler), this court explained that, "[t]hrough statutory definition and judicial development, there are three types of acts that can underlie commission of involuntary manslaughter: a misdemeanor, a lawful act, or a noninherently dangerous felony." (Id. at p. 1006.) "[C]riminal negligence is the governing mens rea standard for all three forms of committing [involuntary manslaughter]." (Id. at p. 1007.) In Butler we further explained that "[c]riminal negligence has been defined in a variety of ways. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Coxgreen1 sentence2025(People v. Cox (2000) 23 Cal.4th 665, 672 (Cox) [“‘act’ underlying the offense of involuntary manslaughter ‘must be committed with criminal intent or criminal negligence’”]; People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998, 1007 (Butler) [“criminal negligence is the governing mens rea standard” for first three types of involuntary manslaughter enumerated above].) 4 Defendant’s attacks on the trial court’s reasoning thus provide no basis unto themselves for reversal. 6 We conclude that the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslau | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eversgreen1 sentence2015By contrast[,] where the defendant realizes and then acts in total disregard of the danger, the defendant is guilty of murder based on implied malice.” (People v. Evers (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 588, 596 [where evidence established that the defendant intentionally used force against two-year-old victim, knowing the probable consequences of his action, involuntary manslaughter instruction is not required].) 16 aforethought (CALCRIM No. 520). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robertsongreen1 sentence2015(See generally People v. Robertson (2004) 34 Cal.4th 156, 164 [second degree murder requires malice aforethought, but not the additional elements of premeditation and deliberation, which elevate a murder to first degree], overruled on other grounds by People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172 ; § 187, subd. (a).) The jury was instructed on first or second degree murder with malice 16 Brandishing a weapon “may be committed by drawing or exhibiting a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.” (People v. Booker, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 189 ; People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 814 .) 17 “ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burroughsgreen1 sentence2010(See People v. Wells, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 988 [misdemeanor causing death must be committed “ ‘through criminal negligence’ ”]; People v. Penny, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 869 [lawful act without due caution and circumspection means with criminal negligence]; People v. Burroughs, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 836 [noninherently dangerous felony committed without due caution and circumspection is involuntary manslaughter].) *1008 Criminal negligence has been defined in a variety of ways. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wellsgreen1 sentence2010(See People v. Wells, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 988 [misdemeanor causing death must be committed “ ‘through criminal negligence’ ”]; People v. Penny, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 869 [lawful act without due caution and circumspection means with criminal negligence]; People v. Burroughs, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 836 [noninherently dangerous felony committed without due caution and circumspection is involuntary manslaughter].) *1008 Criminal negligence has been defined in a variety of ways. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998, 1007 .) “[C]riminal negligence is the governing mens rea standard for all three forms of committing the offense. [Citations.]” (People v. Butler, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007 .) Criminal negligence consists of “‘aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless’ conduct that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury and that evidences a disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of the conduct. [Citations.]” (People v. Garcia, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 27–28.) As noted above, Garcia addressed whether the trial court in t 2013(People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998, 1007 .) “[C]riminal negligence is the governing mens rea standard for all three forms of committing the offense. [Citations.]” (People v. Butler, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 1007 .) Criminal negligence consists of “ ‘aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless’ conduct that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury and that evidences a 41. disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of the conduct. [Citations.]” ( Garcia, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 27-28.) As explained in section IV, ante, Garcia addressed whether the tr | 2 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2015In People v. Penny[ (1955)] 44 Cal.2d [861], 879, the court explained: '"[C]riminal negligence"' exists when the defendant engages in conduct that is '"aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless"'; i.e., conduct that is '"such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful man under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life, or in other words, a disregard of human life or an indifference to consequences."' Similarly, in People v. Rodriguez (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 433, 440 , the court stated that criminal 13 negligence exists 'w | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Booker
green
1 sentence2015(See generally People v. Robertson (2004) 34 Cal.4th 156, 164 [second degree murder requires malice aforethought, but not the additional elements of premeditation and deliberation, which elevate a murder to first degree], overruled on other grounds by People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172 ; § 187, subd. (a).) The jury was instructed on first or second degree murder with malice 16 Brandishing a weapon “may be committed by drawing or exhibiting a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.” (People v. Booker, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 189 ; People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 814 .) 17 “ | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2015(See generally People v. Robertson (2004) 34 Cal.4th 156, 164 [second degree murder requires malice aforethought, but not the additional elements of premeditation and deliberation, which elevate a murder to first degree], overruled on other grounds by People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172 ; § 187, subd. (a).) The jury was instructed on first or second degree murder with malice 16 Brandishing a weapon “may be committed by drawing or exhibiting a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.” (People v. Booker, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 189 ; People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 814 .) 17 “ | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Chun
red
1 sentence2015(See generally People v. Robertson (2004) 34 Cal.4th 156, 164 [second degree murder requires malice aforethought, but not the additional elements of premeditation and deliberation, which elevate a murder to first degree], overruled on other grounds by People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172 ; § 187, subd. (a).) The jury was instructed on first or second degree murder with malice 16 Brandishing a weapon “may be committed by drawing or exhibiting a weapon in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.” (People v. Booker, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 189 ; People v. Thomas, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 814 .) 17 “ | 1 | 2015–2015 |