INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
The act of unlawfully killing another human being
unintentionally.
Most unintentional killings are not murder
but involuntary manslaughter. The absence of
the element of intent is the key distinguishing
factor between voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter. In most states involuntary
manslaughter results from an improper use of
reasonable care or skill while performing a legal
act, or while committing an act that is unlawful
but not felonious.
Many states do not define involuntary
manslaughter, or define it vaguely in common-
law terms. Some jurisdictions describe the
amount of NEGLIGENCE necessary to constitute
manslaughter with terms such as criminal negli-
gence, gross negligence, and culpable negligence.
The only certainty that can be attached to these
terms is that they require more than the ordi-
nary negligence standard in a civil case. With
this approach the state does not have to prove
that the defendant was aware of the risk.
Other jurisdictions apply more subjective
tests, such as “reckless” or “wanton,” to describe
the amount of negligence needed to constitute
involuntary manslaughter. In this approach the
defendant must have personally appreciated a
risk and then chosen to take it anyway.
There are two types of involuntary man-
slaughter statutes: criminally negligent man-
slaughter and unlawful act manslaughter.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when
death results from a high degree of negligence or
recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally
require a consciousness of risk and under some
codes the absence of this element makes the
offense a less serious HOMICIDE.
An omission to act or a failure to perform a
duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaugh-
ter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since
the law does not recognize that an ordinary per-
son has a duty to aid or rescue another in dis-
tress, a death resulting from an ordinary person’s
failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other
hand, an omission by someone who has a duty,
such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning
person by a lifeguard, might constitute involun-
tary manslaughter.
In many jurisdictions death that results from
the operation of a vehicle in a criminally negli-
gent manner is punishable as a separate offense.
Usually it is considered a less severe offense than
involuntary manslaughter. These jurisdictions
usually call the offense reckless homicide, negli-
gent homicide, or vehicular homicide. One rea-
son for this lesser offense is the reluctance of
juries to convict automobile drivers of man-
slaughter.
Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when
someone causes a death while committing or
attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a
misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between
conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and
conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because
it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum
in se is based on common-law definitions of
crime; for example, an ASSAULT AND BATTERY
could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are
made illegal by legislation—for example, reck-
less driving—are malum prohibitum. In states
that use this distinction, an act must be malum in
se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum
prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the
person who committed it could have foreseen
that death would be a direct result of the act.
In other states this distinction is not made. If
death results from an unlawful act, the person
who committed the act may be prosecuted for
involuntary manslaughter even if the act was
malum prohibitum. Courts will uphold unlawful
act manslaughter where the statute was intended
to prevent injury to another person.
CROSS-REFERENCES
