SERIES 500 HOMICIDE
F 580 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 580.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 580.1 Inst 1 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Title
F 580.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
F 580.2 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 580.2 Inst 1 Tailoring To Facts
F 580.3 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc. [Reserved]
F 580.4 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 580.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
F 580.4 Inst 2 (a & b) Modification Of Burden Shifting Language; Tailoring To Facts
F 580.4 Inst 3 Improper Implication That Murder May Be Based On Criminal Negligence
F 580.5 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Elements And Definitions
F 580.5 Inst 1 Separate Enumeration Of Unlawful Act And Criminal Negligence Theories
F 580.5 Inst 2 Criminal Negligence “Requires” More Than Ordinary Negligence
F 580.5 Inst 3 Requirement Of Risk To Human Beings
F 580.6 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Defense Theories [Reserved]
F 580.7 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 580.8 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Unanimity/ Duplicity/ Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 580.9 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Lesser Offense Issues
F 580.9 Inst 1 Accidental Killing Resulting From Firing Of Weapon With Intent Only To Frighten
Return to Series 500 Table of Contents.
F 580.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 580.1 Inst 1 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Title
See generally FORECITE F 200.1.2 Note 2, CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-002, CCM-003, and CCM-004.
F 580.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
See generally FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005 and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.
F 580.2 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 580.2 Inst 1 Tailoring To Facts
See FORECITE F 572.2 Inst 1.
F 580.3 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc. [Reserved]
F 580.4 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 580.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.
F 580.4 Inst 2 (a & b) Modification Of Burden Shifting Language; Tailoring To Facts
Alternative a [Tailored to Defendant]:
*Modify CC 580, paragraph 1, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
When a person commits If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed an unlawful killing but does you cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) either intended to kill and does not or acted with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.
Alternative b [Generic]:
When the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a person commits committed an unlawful killing but has failed to prove that the person does not intended to kill and does not or acted with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.
*Modify paragraph 2 as follows:
The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of either intent to kill and or without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Burden Of Prosecution—The language and structure of CALCRIM 580 unconstitutionally implies that lack of intent to kill and conscious disregard for human life must be established or proven for the crime to be involuntary manslaughter. (See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.)
No Reference To “The People” —The defendant objects to use of the term “the People” in this instruction and throughout this trial. [See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1; CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.]
Use Of The Term “Defendant” —The defense requests that the defendant be referred to by name throughout this trial and in the jury instructions. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005.] By using the term “defendant” in this instructional request, the defense does not withdraw the request.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 580.4 Inst 3 Improper Implication That Murder May Be Based On Criminal Negligence
*Modify CC 580, paragraph 13, sentence 1, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
In order To prove murder or voluntary manslaughter, the People have prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of those crimes including that the defendant acted with intent to kill for murder, or with conscious disregard for human life for voluntary manslaughter.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
The CALCRIM Deficiency: Improper Combining Of Requirements For Voluntary Manslaughter And Murder In A Single Sentence—The CALCRIM language, read literally, improperly and unconstitutionally implies that “to prove murder” the prosecution must prove criminal negligence. (See generally In re Winship (1970) 397 US 358 [25 LEd2d 368; 90 SCt 1068] [prosecution must prove all elements of charged offense]; see also CALCRIM 103.) The fact that other instructions may state the burden correctly does not cure the error. (See Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 US 307 [85 LEd2d 344; 105 SCt 1965]; see also FORECITE F 100.1 Inst 1.)
No Reference To “The People” —The defendant objects to use of the term “the People” in this instruction and throughout this trial. [See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1; CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.]
Use Of The Term “Defendant” —The defense requests that the defendant be referred to by name throughout this trial and in the jury instructions. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005.] By using the term “defendant” in this instructional request, the defense does not withdraw the request.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 580.5 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Elements And Definitions
F 580.5 Inst 1 Separate Enumeration Of Unlawful Act And Criminal Negligence Theories
*Replace CC 580, paragraphs 3 though 8 with the following:
To prove that the defendant is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of either one of the following theories:
<Unlawful Act Theory>
1. The defendant committed the crime of _______________ <insert alleged crime>. To prove this element the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
[Insert required elements.]
[OR
The defendant committed the crime of _______________ <insert additional alleged crime>. To prove this element the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
[Insert required elements.]
2. The ______________ <crime> [or ______________ <crime>] which defendant committed posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury to [_____________<name of victim>] [one or more human beings] because of the way in which the crime was committed;
AND
3. While committing the ______________ <crime>, the defendant committed acts which unlawfully caused the death of another.
<Criminal Negligence Theory>
1. The defendant committed the lawful act of ______________ <alleged lawful act> [or ______________<additional alleged lawful act>]
2. The defendant committed the ______________<alleged lawful act> [or ______________<additional alleged lawful act>] with criminal negligence by:
A. Acting in a reckless way that created a high risk of death or great bodily injury to [_____________<name of victim>] [one or more human beings];
B. A reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would have known that acting as the defendant did would create such a risk;
AND
C. The way the defendant acted was so different from the way an ordinary careful person would have acted in the same situation that the defendant’s act amounted to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of the act.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Avoiding Requiring The Jurors To Cross-Reference And Sort Through Other Instructions—CALCRIM 580 is unduly complex and potentially confusing or misleading because the required components of each element are not kept together. Thus, the jurors must incorporate explanations, definitions, and elements from elsewhere in the instruction from other instructions. The jurors will be able to better understand the required elements if all relevant components of that element are together in a clear and direct recitation of what must be found.
Separately Enumerating Combined Elements—See FORECITE F 3500.2 Inst 1.
No Reference To “The People” —The defendant objects to use of the term “the People” in this instruction and throughout this trial. [See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1; CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.]
Use Of The Term “Defendant” —The defense requests that the defendant be referred to by name throughout this trial and in the jury instructions. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005.] By using the term “defendant” in this instructional request, the defense does not withdraw the request.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 580.5 Inst 2 Criminal Negligence “Requires” More Than Ordinary Negligence
*Modify CC 580, paragraph 7, as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
[Criminal negligence involves requires more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal negligence when:
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Proof Of Elements Is “Required” —The components of criminal negligence should be characterized as required elements. (See generally In re Winship (1970) 397 US 358 [25 LEd2d 368; 90 SCt 1068]; see also FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.)
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 580.5 Inst 3 Requirement Of Risk To Human Beings
*Modify CC 580, paragraph 7, Element 1, as follows
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury [to _________________ <name of victim>] [one or more human beings];
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Risk To Human Life As Required Element—The enumerated elements of criminal negligence in CALCRIM 580 fail to relate the risk to human beings. Even though the next paragraph does refer to “disregard for human life,” it should be included in the defining elements. (See In re Winship (1970) 397 US 358 [25 LEd2d 368; 90 SCt 1068]; see also FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.)
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 580.6 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Defense Theories[Reserved]
F 580.7 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Preliminary Fact Issues[Reserved]
F 580.8 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Unanimity/ Duplicity/ Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 580.9 Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense—Lesser Offense Issues
F 580.9 Inst 1 Accidental Killing Resulting From Firing Of Weapon With Intent Only To Frighten
*Add to CC 580:
If the defendant fired the weapon with the intent only to frighten, and not to shoot the deceased, and if the defendant did not act in self-defense as defined in these instruction, then you may convict the defendant of involuntary manslaughter.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Intent To Frighten As Involuntary Manslaughter—If a defendant discharges a gun Awith intent only to frighten, and not to shoot the deceased, and such act was not done in the exercise of defendant’s right of self-defense, he could be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. (People v. McGee (1947) 31 C2d 229, 238-39; see also People v. Southack (1952) 39 C2d 578, 583-84.)
Use Of The Term “Defendant” —The defense requests that the defendant be referred to by name throughout this trial and in the jury instructions. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005.] By using the term “defendant” in this instructional request, the defense does not withdraw the request.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization.—To preserve federal claims, counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
FORECITE CG 8.4 [Right To Jury Determination Of Lesser Included Offense]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.45g.