Opinion ID: 891630
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Mens Rea for Involuntary Manslaughter is Criminal Negligence

Text: {13} Our Legislature has defined involuntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice ... committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. Section 30-2-3(B). Defendant argues that the evidence presented at trial satisfies the definition of involuntary manslaughter because Victim died as a result of a lawful act exercised without due caution or circumspection. {14} A defendant may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter when a convergence of the proper act and state of mind requirements result in the death of an individual. See State v. Padilla, 2008-NMSC-006, ¶ 12, 143 N.M. 310, 176 P.3d 299. Involuntary manslaughter occurs only when the killing is unintentional. See State v. Pruett, 27 N.M. 576, 579, 203 P. 840, 841 (1921). Our case law has made clear, and the district court in this case recognized, that a jury will be issued an involuntary manslaughter instruction if the evidence of the homicide fits one of three categories: 1) the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony; 2) the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner; or 3) the commission of a lawful act that might produce death without due caution and circumspection. Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 54, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996 (citing State v. Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131). The act causing the victim's death must fit one of those categories; the death itself must be unintentional. {15} The required mens rea for a conviction of involuntary manslaughter is criminal negligence. State v. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 14, 147 N.M. 747, 228 P.3d 1167 ([I]n the absence of criminal negligence, the defendant cannot be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.); Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131 (holding that the State must show at least criminal negligence to convict a criminal defendant of involuntary manslaughter). This standard is reflected in the statutory language permitting a charge of involuntary manslaughter when an otherwise lawful act is conducted without due caution or circumspection. Section 30-2-3(B). {16} The showing of criminal negligence required for an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction includes the concept of recklessness, in which a defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that harm will result from his conduct. Model Penal Code § 2.02(c) (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1962). The uniform jury instruction on criminal negligence incorporates this definition, defining criminal negligence as existing when a person act[s] with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endanger[s] any person or property. UJI 14-133 NMRA. Likewise, the instruction on involuntary manslaughter states that the defendant should have known of the danger involved by [his or her] actions. UJI 14-231 NMRA. To be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a defendant must have been aware of the risk caused by his or her conduct and continued to act. {17} Our case law has long integrated the requirement of subjective knowledge into the showing of criminal negligence required by our involuntary manslaughter statute. See State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 428, 70 P.2d 757, 758 (1937) (defining criminal negligence required for involuntary manslaughter as so reckless, wanton, and willful as to show an utter disregard for the safety of [others]); see also Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 20, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131 (noting, in a vehicular homicide case, that to find criminal negligence, [the jury] must find that [the defendant] drove with willful disregard of the rights or safety of others and in a manner which endangered any person or property (quoting NMRA 14-241 (1996))); Romero, 2005-NMCA-060, ¶ 17, 137 N.M. 456, 112 P.3d 1113 (finding that an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction should have been given where the defendant presented evidence that he was acting lawfully in self-defense but without due caution or circumspection due to the victim's medical condition, of which the defendant was aware); cf. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 14, 147 N.M. 747, 228 P.3d 1167 (stating that a jury instructed on involuntary manslaughter is not also instructed on accident, as accident requires proof of usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, in contrast to the required showing of criminal negligence for an involuntary manslaughter instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis omitted)). Criminal negligence in the context of involuntary manslaughter requires subjective knowledge by the defendant of the danger or risk to others posed by his or her actions. A jury may not be instructed on involuntary manslaughter unless the evidence presented at trial shows the defendant could be found criminally negligent when engaging in the act causing the victim's death.