Bricker:
That case was for a manslaughter charge, wasn’t it? And in the present case, we have child endangerment. Perhaps the two crimes have different degrees of mental culpability? Simple negligence might be enough to support child endangerment but is typically insufficient for manslaughter.
IIRC, that case was for manslaughter, but the court briefly addressed the alternate theory of endangerment and quickly wrote that theory off due to a lack of criminal negligence.
Not exactly. They said that the level of negligence for child endangerment was not the same as that required for manslaughter:
California Court of Appeals:
The attorney general contends that even if defendant had no criminal intent and was not criminally negligent, she violated section 273a of the Penal Code and therefore committed an unlawful act within the meaning of section 192 of the Penal Code.
(Quick translation: the AG argues that even if she didn’t have any criminal negligence, she did violate the endangerment statute. And violating the endangerment statute should count as “an unlawful act” that causes a death within the meaning of the manslaughter statute.
Penal Code, section 273a, reads: “Any person who willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or who inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, and whoever, having the care or custody of any child, causes or permits the life or limb of such child to be endangered, or the health of such child to be injured, and any person who willfully causes or permits such child to be placed in such situation that its life or limb may be endangered, or its health likely to be injured, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
[3] "It does not follow, however, that such acts, committed without criminal intent or criminal negligence, are unlawful acts within the meaning of section 192 of the Penal Code, for it is settled that this section is governed by section 20 of the Penal Code. Thus, in People v. Penny, 44 Cal.2d 861, 877-880 [285 P.2d 926], we held that ‘there was nothing to show that the Legislature intended to except section 192 of the Penal Code from the operation of section 20 of the same code’ and that the phrase ‘without due caution and circumspection’ in section 192 was therefore the equivalent of criminal negligence. Since section 20 also applies to the phrase ‘unlawful act,’ the act in question must be committed with criminal intent or criminal negligence to be an unlawful act within the meaning of section 192. By virtue of its application to both phrases, section 20 precludes the incongruity of imposing on the morally innocent the same penalty (Pen. Code, § 193) appropriate only for the culpable. Words such as ‘unlawful act, not amounting to felony’ have been included in most definitions of manslaughter since the time of Blackstone [citations] and even since the time of Lord Hale, ‘unlawful act’ as it pertains to manslaughter has been interpreted as meaning an act that aside from its unlawfulness was of such a dangerous nature as to justify a conviction of manslaughter if done intentionally or without due caution. [Citations.]
[4] To be an unlawful act within the meaning of section 192, therefore, the act in question must be dangerous to human life or safety and meet the conditions of section 20." (People v. Stuart, 47 Cal.2d 167, 173 [302 P.2d 5, 55 A.L.R.2d 705].)
So an act may be negligent enough to violate the child endangerment statute, but not negligent or reckless within the meaning of the manslaughter statute. The court doesn’t address whether or not she actually violated the endangerment statute; they just say that even if she did, it doesn’t make a resulting death manslaughter.
Ah, thanks. That’ll teach me not to skim.