Gross Negligence as an Element of Involuntary Manslaughter

Introduction: legislation holding parents criminally responsible for the delinquent acts of their children faces with the difficulty of meeting the requisite legal thresholds, such as proving willful intent or gross negligence on the part of the parent. Typically, a person who contributes to the neglect or delinquency of a minor is guilty only of a misdemeanor. Purpose: address important questions about the negligence of the parents and their potential criminal liability for manslaughter. Results: James and Jennifer Crumbley’s conviction doesn’t fit into any of the categories of traditional parental responsibility laws and is instead a first-of-its-kind extension of the manslaughter statute. The liability for the lethal acts of others involves proof of the existence of felonious intent plus a causal relationship between the felony and the death. Under the current common law, the core of complicity lies in intentionally encouraging or assisting the principal offender. Conclusions: the Crumbley verdict may forge a precedent for being gradually applied as a tool for prosecutors to pressure suspects into plea bargains. They “lessen the mens rea needed to establish guilt,” and thus parents are held responsible despite not intending to allow the child to commit the crime.