Ok, here we go.
At the bottom of the post, is the jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter. I struck out portions that the Judge would likely strike out. I don't know the jury instructions for NM, so this is CA's. Ultimately, invol requires you do an act with criminal negligence that kills someone. While it is going to be helpful for Baldwin to cast blame on the person that already was convicted, his acts are independent. As I gather from the reports, the question for him is whether he was supposed to be aiming a gun at this person, and whether he was supposed to fire a gun at this person.
I don't believe he didn't pull the trigger. The state's experts will be able to get around that without much challenge. I think the biggest issue here will be not to worry about whether or not Baldwin knew the gun had live rounds. Instead, it will be whether he was supposed to point, and fire, a gun at those people. If he was indeed scripted to do so, I can't imagine how on earth he could be held criminally liable for that. If he wasn't, and was joking around or whatever, he should be found guilty-- even if he was told the gun was cold. Firing blanks at someone is inherently dangerous. These aren't toys.
Compare for example, looking down at your radio when you drive a car. Whomp. Hit and kill somone. Did an act that killed someone? Check. Criminal negligence? (Reckless manner that a reasonable person would know can cause GBI/death) Not so much.
Alec Baldwin says the dead girl told him to point (not shoot) the gun at her armpit area. No clue if this is true. But he pulled the trigger, despite his denials.
As I understand it, and I may be wrong because I looked over this quickly, Baldwin's acts meet the criteria of involuntary manslaughter.
Pointed a gun at someone. Pulled the trigger. That act caused a death. Pointing a gun, even a "cold" gun, at someone is reckless and can cause GBI/death. Didn't intend to kill.
Defense1 -- jury nullification/sympathy despite met elements. He can cast blame on someone else, and all he needs is one juror to sympathize with him to preclude a unanimous sentence, thus a retrial.
Defense 2- didn't pull the trigger. If he can prove this, he didn't do an act that caused a death. Without all elements met, no conviction. if he can convince one juror he didn't pull the trigger, he can prevent a unanimous sentence.
Defense 3- He was directed to point the gun, and fire the gun, at the person. At this point, he can shift blame to the armorer and avoid liability.
His sentence? Should be nothing, or next to nothing. He didn't want to kill her. This seems like an accident. A bad accident, but an accident nonetheless.
_____________________________________________________
NOTE-- 581 is the right instruction when murder isn't charged. I already started editing this and I don't want to re-do it. Invol can be charged on its own, or is a lesser included offense of murder. The elements are the same.
580.Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense (Pen.Code, § 192(b))
When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill and does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime
is involuntary manslaughter.
The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is voluntary manslaughter or murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life is involuntary manslaughter. The defendant committed involuntary manslaughter if:
1. The defendant committed (a crime/ [or] a lawful act in an unlawful manner);
2. The defendant committed the (crime/ [or] act) with criminal negligence;
AND
3. The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.
[The People allege that the defendant committed the following crime:<insert misdemeanor/infraction)/noninherently dangerous
(felony/felonies)/inherently dangerous assaultive (felony/felonies)>.Instruction tell you what the People must prove in
order to prove that the defendant committed <insertmisdemeanor/infraction)/ noninherently dangerous (felony/felonies)/inherently dangerous assaultive (felony/felonies)>.]
[The People [also] allege that the defendant committed the following lawful act with criminal negligence: <insert act
alleged>.]Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal
negligence when:
1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury;
AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.][There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if
it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is morethan a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only
factor that causes the death.]Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It isan injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.[The People allege that the defendant committed the following (crime/[and] lawful act with criminal negligence): <insert alleged
predicate acts when multiple acts alleged>. You may not find the defendant guilty unless all of you agree that the People have proved that
the defendant committed at least one of these alleged acts and you all agree that the same act or acts were proved.]
