Posts Tagged ‘bodily injury’

LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE CHARGES JACKSON PHYSICIAN WITH INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

The Los Angeles District Attorney charged Dr Murray with involuntary manslaughter.  He now faces up to four years in jail if convicted.  The California Penal Code defines Manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.  Involuntary manslaughter is defined as a killing “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.”  Apparently, Dr. Murray administered a powerful sedative to Jackson in an effort to help him sleep.  Dr. Murray was allowed to surrender himself at court in Los Angeles without being handcuffed.  As he walked into court he was jeered by fans of the singer who hoisted banners including “Justice for Michael.”  Jacksons parents Joe and Katherine, and siblings Tito, LaToya and Jermaine also arrived at court. Asked if he was the happy with the charge, Jermaine Jackson said: “It’s not enough.”

The California Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 581) define the crime of voluntary manslaughter as follows:
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant (committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed/ [or] committed a lawful act, but acted with criminal negligence);AND

(more…)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Los Angeles Drug Attorney | No Comments »

Should dogsitter be criminally liable for dog’s attack?

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

Recently, in a California case, the defendant’s dog bit the victim’s leg.  The jury convicted the defendant of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury and the personal infliction of great bodily injury.

The California court held that the evidence supported the finding that the evidence supported the finding that one of the dogs obeyed the defendant’s command to attack and maul the victim.  The defendant knew that the dogs would attack on command, having been present during an earlier incident when the dog’s owner had instructed the dogs to attack a man. The dog’s also obeyed the defendant who cared for them.

When a neighbor told the defendant to stop the attack, the defendant refused to call off the dogs.  The California court held that the defendant directed the attacked and hindered its ending so that the defendant, not the dog, should and could be held responsible for personally inflicting great bodily injury.  People v. Frazier (2009)  173 Cal.App.4th 613.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Dog Bite Attorney | No Comments »