People v. Oliver
258 Cal. Rptr. 138, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 441, 210 Cal. App. 3d 138 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person has an affirmative legal duty to render aid to another in peril when their own conduct has contributed to creating an unreasonable risk of harm to that person. A criminally negligent breach of this duty that results in death can support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
Facts:
- Carol Ann Oliver met Carlos Cornejo at a bar, where she observed he was extremely drunk.
- Oliver drove Cornejo from the public bar to her private home.
- At her house, Oliver provided a spoon to Cornejo, knowing he intended to use it to inject illegal drugs.
- Cornejo injected himself with heroin in Oliver's bathroom and then collapsed unconscious in her living room.
- Oliver was unable to rouse Cornejo.
- At Oliver's direction, her daughter and friends dragged the unconscious Cornejo outside and left him behind a shed.
- The next morning, Cornejo was found dead from a heroin overdose.
- Oliver later gave jewelry she had taken from Cornejo's body to a friend to hold for her.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol Ann Oliver was charged with involuntary manslaughter and receiving stolen property in a state trial court.
- The prosecution proceeded on two theories for the manslaughter charge: aiding and abetting a misdemeanor (drug use) and criminal negligence (failure to render aid).
- At the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief, Oliver's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal.
- The trial court denied the motion for acquittal.
- A jury found Oliver guilty of involuntary manslaughter, without specifying which theory it relied upon.
- Oliver, as the appellant, appealed her conviction to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who contributes to creating a circumstance that results in another person's peril have an affirmative legal duty to seek medical assistance for them, the breach of which constitutes criminal negligence sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Strankman, J.
Yes. A person who contributes to creating a circumstance that places another in peril has a legal duty to seek assistance, and a breach of that duty can constitute criminal negligence. While generally there is no duty to render aid to a stranger, a special relationship giving rise to such a duty is created when a person's conduct contributes to or increases the risk of injury to another. Here, Oliver's actions created such a duty. By taking the intoxicated Cornejo from a public place to her private home and then providing him a spoon for drug use, she contributed to the risk that led to his overdose. Once he collapsed, her conduct had created an unreasonable risk of death, imposing upon her a duty to summon medical aid. Her failure to do so, and instead abandoning him outside, was a gross departure from the standard of care and constituted criminal negligence, especially given her prior experience with her ex-husband's fatal overdose. The court also found sufficient evidence that she aided and abetted his misdemeanor drug use by providing the spoon.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the concept of a 'special relationship' that creates a duty to act in criminal law. It imports principles from tort law, specifically the idea that one who creates a risk of harm has a duty to prevent that harm from occurring. The ruling establishes that a defendant doesn't need to be the sole or direct cause of the victim's peril; contributing to the dangerous circumstances is sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to render aid. This decision lowers the threshold for finding a legal duty in criminal omission cases, holding individuals accountable for their failure to act after playing a role in creating a dangerous situation.
