U.S. v. Oxendine, 55 M.J. 323

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 119 - Manslaughter Pre-2019 offenses

1. culpable negligence is defined as a negligent act or omission accompanied by a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences to others of that act or omission
2. the basis of a charge of involuntary manslaughter may be a negligent act or omission which, when viewed in the light of human experience, might foreseeably result in the death of another
3. the test for foreseeability is whether a reasonable person, in view of all the circumstances, would have realized the substantial and unjustified danger created by his acts
4. having decided to participate with the deceased and other Marines in a dangerous joint enterprise, appellant was bound by the circumstances that would have put a reasonable person on notice as to the risk he was creating or helping to create, and the foreseeable consequences of that risk; it was not necessary the appellant himself be aware of the substantial risk he is creating, but only that a reasonable person would have realized the risk
5. a deceased’s negligence alone was not a superseding cause sufficient to create the proximate cause of his death required in the context of this particular joint enterprise to exonerate appellant where the objective of the game could not be achieved but for the assistance of others holding the deceased outside the window; thus, death would not have resulted had appellant not agreed to be the holder, at least as far as appellant’s liability is concerned
6. it is possible for negligence of the deceased to intervene between an accused’s conduct and the fatal result in such a manner as to constitute a superseding cause, completely eliminating the defendant form the field of proximate causation; however, this is true only in situations in which the second act of negligence looms so large in comparison with the first, that the first is not to be regarded as a substantial factor in the final result

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. the standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; under this standard, court is bound to draw every reasonable inference form the evidence of record in favor of the prosecution