Scribd
Upload
120 views

People v. Rodriguez

The document summarizes a 1960 court case, People v. Rodriguez. The case involved a defendant whose home caught fire while she was away, resulting in the death of her baby. The appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction of involuntary manslaughter, finding the evidence did not prove criminal negligence. The court concluded the baby's death was a misadventure, not the natural result of a criminally negligent act, as there was no evidence the defendant knew her actions would endanger life or that she was connected to starting the fire.

Uploaded by

Elmer Lucrecia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
120 views

People v. Rodriguez

The document summarizes a 1960 court case, People v. Rodriguez. The case involved a defendant whose home caught fire while she was away, resulting in the death of her baby. The appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction of involuntary manslaughter, finding the evidence did not prove criminal negligence. The court concluded the baby's death was a misadventure, not the natural result of a criminally negligent act, as there was no evidence the defendant knew her actions would endanger life or that she was connected to starting the fire.

Uploaded by

Elmer Lucrecia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People v. Rodriguez - 186 Cal. App.

2d 433
(1960)
RULE:

An act is criminally negligent when a man of ordinary prudence would foresee that the
act would cause a high degree of risk of death or great bodily harm. Whether the
conduct of defendant was wanton or reckless so as to warrant conviction of
manslaughter must be determined from the conduct itself and not from the resultant
harm. Criminal liability cannot be predicated on every careless act merely because its
carelessness results in injury to another. The act must be one which has knowable and
apparent potentialities for resulting in death. Mere inattention or mistake in judgment
resulting even in death of another is not criminal unless the quality of the act makes it
so. The fundamental requirement fixing criminal responsibility is knowledge, actual or
imputed, that the act of the accused tended to endanger life.

FACTS:

Defendant's home caught on fire with her children inside. A baby died as a result.
Defendant was not at home at the time of the fire. The trial court found defendant guilty
of involuntary manslaughter and denied a new trial. On defendant’s appeal, the appellate
court reversed the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial.

ISSUE:

Did the evidence prove criminal negligence on the part of defendant who was convicted
of involuntary manslaughter for the death of her child due to fire while she was away
from home?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

The evidence failed to establish that defendant had the knowledge, actual or imputed,
that her actions tended to endanger life and that the fatal consequences of the negligent
act could reasonably have been foreseen. The only reasonable view of the evidence was
that the death of the baby was the result of misadventure and not the natural and
probable result of a criminally negligent act. There was no evidence that defendant
realized her conduct would have in all probability produced death. There was also no
evidence as to the cause of the fire or connecting defendant in any way with the fire.
Although defendant might have been negligent, mere negligence was not sufficient to
authorize a conviction of involuntary manslaughter.

You might also like