Brief Fact Summary. Appellant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Appellant argued that he was not grossly negligent and that the proper jury instructions were not given.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Involuntary manslaughter requires that the slayer must be shown to have had actual knowledge that his conduct was a threat to the lives of others.
Issue. Whether the proper jury instructions were given for involuntary manslaughter.
Held. Reversed and remanded.
To convict for involuntary manslaughter, a slayer must be shown to have had actual knowledge that his conduct was a threat to the lives of others, or to have knowledge of such circumstances as could reasonably be said to have made foreseeable to him the peril to which acts might subject others.
Gross negligence is required for the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
The facts and circumstances, such as the location and situation in which a defendant was in can be considered. What is grossly negligent in Virginia may be different than what is grossly negligent on an Arctic island with no medical facilities or police force.
Discussion. The Court ruled that the jury was not given the proper instruction regarding involuntary manslaughter. Specifically, the Court noted that there existed proof that the gun Appellant had was defective and could have discharged without Appellant firing it. Further, the Court ruled that the nature and environment that Appellant was in could be taken into account. Appellant resided with only a few others on a small island with little communication with the outside world, no police force and no public facilities. All of these factors could be taken into account to determine whether Appellant was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.