Opinion ID: 1270085
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: superior court's failure to instruct on culpable negligence, contributory negligence, and the giving of an instruction concerning careless use of firearms

Text: The jury was given several instructions on manslaughter. It was first instructed: Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being. The crime of manslaughter is distinguished from murder, in any degree, in that proof of malice and purpose are not required. The jury was further instructed: The word unlawfully means wrongfully or contrary to law. Hence, to do an act unlawfully means to do willfully something which is contrary to law. Under the instructions given, the only unlawful act which the jury was advised of was the careless use of firearms statute. At the time of the offense, AS 11.15.200 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) A person who intentionally, and without malice, points or aims a firearm at or toward a person, or discharges a firearm so pointed or aimed at a person is guilty of careless use of firearms ... (b) If death ensues from the maiming or injuring, the person discharging the firearm may, in the discretion of the prosecuting officer or grand jury, be charged with the crime of manslaughter. Finally, the jury was instructed: When the state bases a charge of Manslaughter upon the violation of a statute it must show that such violation was the proximate cause of the homicide. Proximate cause was also further defined for the jury. However, no instructions were given on culpable negligence or contributory negligence, even though instructions on those subjects were requested by Keith's trial counsel. Careless use of firearms was not designated a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the instructions. Keith contends that the instruction on careless use of firearms was erroneous, and that the superior court further erred in failing to give his requested instructions on culpable negligence and contributory negligence. [47] Given our holding regarding the proper construction of the careless use of firearms statute, we conclude that this specification of error is without merit. Under the construction we have adopted today if a violation of the intentional pointing/unintentional discharge portion of the careless use statute is found, a misdemeanor-manslaughter conviction automatically results if the victim is killed. The only way the jury in this case could have arrived at a manslaughter conviction, assuming it followed the instructions given by the superior court, is if it found an intentional pointing and an unintentional discharge of the firearm. Thus, although the instruction incorrectly required the jury also to find a wounding or maiming in addition to the pointing, a finding of injury would not negate the need to find the other elements of the crime. The fact of death was not in dispute in this case. [48] Thus, there was no error in not instructing the jury on culpable negligence or the lesser included offense of careless use of firearms. Reversed and Remanded for new trial.