People v. Crow

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 1941 No. Crim. 3521Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motions for new trial, holding that negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter are distinct crimes and that a conviction for manslaughter does not require proof of wanton or reckless conduct. The court also dismissed the appeal from the order granting probation as it is not an appealable order.

Issues

Are the verdicts of guilty of manslaughter and not guilty of negligent homicide inconsistent?
Is a defendant placed in double jeopardy when acquitted of negligent homicide but convicted of manslaughter for the same act?
Does involuntary manslaughter require proof of wantonness or flagrant disregard for the safety of others?
Is an order granting probation and suspending the pronouncement of judgment an appealable order?

Disposition. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is established in California that section 500 of the Vehicle Code (negligent homicide) defines a crime different from involuntary manslaughter”

“An order granting probation and suspending the pronouncement of judgment and sentence is not an appealable order.”

McCOMB, J.

From orders denying defendant's motions for new trials after verdicts of guilty on two counts of manslaughter, defendant appeals.

The ease was tried before a jury and defendant was placed upon probation, no judgments of conviction being entered, but an order suspending proceedings pending the term of probation was made by the trial judge. From this order defendant also attempts to appeal.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (respondent), the essential facts are:

About 7 p. m., September 22, 1940, defendant was driving in an easterly direction on Ocean Avenue in Long Beach. At the same time Mr. and Mrs. Vrzal were crossing Ocean Avenue in a marked cross-walk. Defendant struck them with his automobile and as a result of injuries which they received they died.

The information in five counts charged defendant as follows:

Count I: Violation of section 500 of the Vehicle Code (negligent homicide), committed on September 22, 1940, proximately causing the death of John Vrzal.

Count II: Manslaughter, being a different statement of the same offense set forth in Count I.

Count III: Violation of section 500 of the Vehicle Code (negligent homicide), committed on September 22, 1940, proximately causing the death of Anna Vrzal.

Count IV: Manslaughter, being a different statement of the same offense set forth in Count III.

Count V: Violation of section 501 of the Vehicle Code (driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor).

The jury found defendant (1) guilty as charged in Counts II and IV, (2) not guilty on Counts I and III, and (3) they disagreed as to Count V.

Defendant relies for reversal of the orders denying his motions for new trials on these propositions:

First: The verdicts are inconsistent, in that the same ele-

[669]

ments required to constitute a violation of section 500 of the Vehicle Code are also required to constitute involuntary manslaughter; and, since the jury found the elements did not exist to constitute a violation of section 500 of the Vehicle Code, it was inconsistent for them to find that the same elements existed to constitute mvoluntary manslarnghter.

People v. Crow

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief