Barnett - dangerous things In the cases of such inherently...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
John Tomberlin Law and Society 100 Case Name and Roles: Barnett v State Appellant: Mr. Barnett Procedural Background & Facts: Mr. Barnett killed someone while driving and was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The judge announced that any question as the defendant’s guilt or innocence must be awarded on the side of innocence. Given a court explanation that for guilt to be assigned to Barnett he must be proved to have been acting with negligence. The defendants counsel sought after the case to have it retried on the grounds that simple negligence is not necessarily enough to find guilt but rather that gross negligence is the proper burden of guilt. Descision: The ruling was upheld. Reasoning: Precedent had showed that in most cases vehicles were treated as inherently
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: dangerous things. In the cases, of such inherently dangerous things only simple gross negligence resulting in the death of another in required to find one guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Although were the vehicle to be treated as thing that is not inherently dangerous then the burden of the state would be to demonstrate gross negligence on the part of Barnett a ruling more than 25 years old set precedent to vehicles being treated as deadly weapons in such cases. The justices decided that it would not be prudent to go against such precedent but rather that if such a law were unjust it should be fixed by not by judicial action but legislative....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course LWSO 100 taught by Professor Cranor during the Fall '08 term at UC Riverside.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online