In Jackson v. State [excerpt after the jump] the trial judge instructed on vehicular homicide as a lesser included offense of the manslaughter charge. However, the instructions on vehicular manslaughter were misleading because they did not correctly explain that the lesser offense could be found if the jurors found that the defendant acted recklessly as the defense contended. Because the instructions foreclosed the jurors from finding the defendant guilty of vehicular manslaughter based on reckless conduct, the error was prejudicial.
For subscription based briefing and sample instructions on this and related issues see:
Forecite National™
45.4 - Concurrence Of Act And Intent
45.1.1 - Requirement Of Criminal Intent Or Culpable Mental State: General Principles
Forecite California™
CG 3.12 Requirement Of Criminal Mens Rea
Jackson v. State, 2010 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5, 8-11 (Ala. Crim. App., CR-08-1741, Feb. 5, 2010)
. . . [T]he trial court had previously agreed to instruct the jury on vehicular homicide as a lesser-included offense and did so. Therefore, Jackson was entitled to a jury instruction that was complete and not misleading."'[E]very accused is entitled to have charges given, which would not be misleading, which correctly state the law of his case, and which are supported by any evidence, however weak, insufficient, or doubtful in credibility.' Ex parte Chavers, 361 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Ala. 1978). '"'It is a basic tenet of Alabama law that "a party is entitled to have his theory of the case, made by the pleadings and issues, presented to the jury by proper instruction, . . . and the [trial] court's failure to give those instructions is reversible error."'"' Ex parte McGriff, 908 So. 2d 1024, 1035 (Ala. 2004), quoting Winner Int'l Corp. v. Common Sense, Inc., 863 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn other cases." Williams v. State, 938 So. 2d 440, 444-45 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
Vehicular homicide is defined in Alabama at § 32-5A-192(a), Ala. Code 1975, as follows:"Whoever shall unlawfully and unintentionally cause the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any state law or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle, or vessel, as defined in Section 33-5-3, or to the regulation of traffic or boating, shall be guilty of homicide when the violation is the proximate cause of the death."
Here, Jackson was entitled to a complete jury instruction as to the mens rea necessary for a prima facie case of vehicular homicide. Jury instructions as to that mental state have been addressed in Ex parte Edwards, 816 So. 2d 98 (Ala. 2001), as follows:"The jury in Edwards's case was charged on manslaughter and on criminally negligent homicide as a lesser included offense as to manslaughter, and on vehicular homicide. The jury found Edwards guilty of only vehicular homicide. We conclude that the trial court's initial reservations about tying the requisite mental state to the word 'unlawfully' were sound. We endorse the 'Use Note on Mens Rea Element' that accompanies the Alabama pattern jury instruction applicable to § 32-5A-192; that note states that 'unintentional' is not defined in the Code but that the committee drafting the instruction assumes that word to refer to all forms of mens rea except that described by the word 'intentional.' The Use Note then refers to the previously referenced defined terms governing mens rea elements-- 'intentionally,' 'knowingly,' 'recklessly,' and 'criminal negligence ' Then, the Use Note correctly concludes:"'The judge should insert the appropriate mens rea element considering the indictment and the evidence before the court. "There are few, if any, strict liability offenses in this Criminal Code…." Ala. Code § 13A-2-3 Commentary. See also § 13A-2-4(b).'
"Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal, 14-4 to 14-6 (3d ed.1994)." Ex parte Edwards, 816 So. 2d at 107 (footnote omitted.)
Moreover, the error resulting from the jury's being foreclosed from finding Jackson guilty of vehicular homicide based on reckless conduct was not harmless. Both the evidence and the jury's finding of manslaughter after it had been charged on recklessness as to that offense support this conclusion.
