Definition of manslaughter as unintentional homicide

[seamusTX]

Spawned from NY: "I didn't mean to shoot"

... let's discuss as a purely hypothetical matter ... your point that to unintentionally shoot someone means manslaughter. You don't define manslaughter -- would I be right to think it requires an element of negligence? If am right on that, then if your gun goes off because one of your attackers grabs it -- so shooting one of the other attackers -- it would have been unintentional on your part yet not necessarily negligent on your part. Therefore, it appears your point is not correct that unintentional shooting always equates with manslaughter.

That thread concerned a case in New York. I'm not planning a trip to New York and have not looked up their laws. Each state has some quirks, though over the years the important laws have converged.

I think it might be more useful to discuss an unintentional shooting in light of current Texas law.

First we have the common-law definition of manslaughter, which is killing a human being unintentionally, recklessly, or negligently.

Manslaughter under Texas law is defined in Penal Code Sec. 19.04:

MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.

The PC conveniently defines recklessly in Sec. 6.03(c):

A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

You can compare the more serious offense of criminally negligent homicide and the definition of criminal negligence.

Now, mental state (mens rea, as the scholars call it) is subjective and an issue for a jury decision.

In your example, an assailant trying to take a weapon from an innocent person is already committing aggravated assault and robbery (taking property from a person by force). The criminal's behavior would already justify deadly force.

Furthermore, under Texas law, any result that occurs during the commission of a crime is the fault of the criminal actor (PC 6.04). That leads me to think that the criminal would have committed suicide, homicide, or aggravated assault, regardless of whose hand was on the grip of the pistol. The defender is innocent.

As usual, I am not a lawyer. A real lawyer would charge a fee for this answer, and it would be five pages single-spaced with a bunch of footnotes.

However, the law is supposed to be comprehensible to the average citizen, and Texas law mostly is.

- Jim

[duns]

Jim, that was a long response to my quoted remark. I interpret your response to mean that you are agreeing with me that manslaughter requires an element of recklessness therefore not all unintended killings constitute manslaughter (some are accidental or caused by the recklessness of others than the person holding the gun, for example).

[seamusTX]

I interpret your response to mean that you are agreeing with me that manslaughter requires an element of recklessness therefore not all unintended killings constitute manslaughter ....

Yes. That is exactly what Texas law says.

The law allows for accidents. Most vehicle crashes fall into that category (even though IMHO some recklessness is involved on one or both sides).

The reason I said that the New York case was manslaughter, and would be under Texas law, is that the defendant (a) brought a gun to a shouting match where his presence was not required, (b) fatally shot an unarmed man with no justifying factor, and (c) said that he did not intend to shoot.

If he did not intend to shoot, and the weapon discharged without having a mechanical failure or through the action of another person, it stands to reason that he must have had the safety (if any) off and his finger on the trigger.

That recklessness issue is difficult. An excusable hunting accident in one place might be negligent homicide in another. I have noticed that the use of a weapon crosses some threshold in the minds of prosecutors and jurors that use of a vehicle or chain saw does not. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. It's just the way it is.

- Jim