People v. Berry case brief
1 Cal.App.4th 778
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
offender challenged the judgment from the Superior Court of Santa
Clara County (California), which found him guilty of involuntary
manslaughter, keeping a mischievous animal, keeping a fighting dog,
and cultivating marijuana.
FACTS: Appellant offender challenged the judgment that found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, keeping a mischievous animal, keeping a fighting dog, and cultivating marijuana. Appellant owned three pit bulls and lived next door to the residence of the victim, a child under five years old. The victim wandered over to appellant's yard and was mauled and killed by one of the dogs. Appellant argued that he could not be held criminally liable for the child's death and that the jury instruction on keeping a mischievous animal was incorrect. The court affirmed the judgment and held that minors under the age of five were incapable of negligent acts as a matter of law. The court held that the jury was properly instructed that proof was required that a victim take reasonable precautions pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 399, but that a minor under the age of five need not do so. The court held that the jury instruction that defined mischievous as something capable of causing annoyance, trouble, minor injury, or damage to others was overbroad. The court held that the error was not prejudicial in light of the evidence that appellant's dog was trained and kept as a fighting dog.
CONCLUSION: The judgment of conviction was affirmed because the jury was properly instructed that the victim, being under the age of five, was not required to take reasonable precautions to stay away from appellant offender's mischievous dog. The lower court's definition of mischievous was overbroad but constituted harmless error.
FACTS: Appellant offender challenged the judgment that found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, keeping a mischievous animal, keeping a fighting dog, and cultivating marijuana. Appellant owned three pit bulls and lived next door to the residence of the victim, a child under five years old. The victim wandered over to appellant's yard and was mauled and killed by one of the dogs. Appellant argued that he could not be held criminally liable for the child's death and that the jury instruction on keeping a mischievous animal was incorrect. The court affirmed the judgment and held that minors under the age of five were incapable of negligent acts as a matter of law. The court held that the jury was properly instructed that proof was required that a victim take reasonable precautions pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 399, but that a minor under the age of five need not do so. The court held that the jury instruction that defined mischievous as something capable of causing annoyance, trouble, minor injury, or damage to others was overbroad. The court held that the error was not prejudicial in light of the evidence that appellant's dog was trained and kept as a fighting dog.
CONCLUSION: The judgment of conviction was affirmed because the jury was properly instructed that the victim, being under the age of five, was not required to take reasonable precautions to stay away from appellant offender's mischievous dog. The lower court's definition of mischievous was overbroad but constituted harmless error.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment