People v. Kumar
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. The court sentenced him to two years in prison. He argued the court prejudicially erred by giving “confusing and conflicting instructions” on the mental state required for the charged offense and lesser included offense and by failing to define “criminal negligence,” a term the court used in those instructions. The court of appeal affirmed. Taken together, the instructions conveyed the correct mental state. The court instructed the jury with CALCRIM Nos. 592 and 593, which set forth the elements of the charged offense and the lesser included offense and make it clear that “gross negligence” was required for a conviction on the charged offense and that “ordinary negligence” was required for a conviction on the lesser included offense. Although CALCRIM Nos. 253 and 3404 did not define “criminal negligence,” CALCRIM No. 253 stated, “Criminal negligence is defined in the instructions on that crime,” referring the jury to CALCRIM Nos. 592 and 593, which correctly defined the levels of negligence. The jury would have understood the reference to “criminal negligence” to mean “gross negligence” in the context of the felony offense and “ordinary negligence” in the context of the lesser included misdemeanor offense.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.