CALCRIM No. 592. Gross Vehicular Manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192(c)(1))

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2025 edition)

Download PDF

592.Gross Vehicular Manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192(c)(1))

<If gross vehicular manslaughter is a charged offense, give alternative A; if

this instruction is being given as a lesser included offense, give alternative

B.>

[The defendant is charged [in Count ] with gross vehicular

manslaughter [in violation of Penal Code section 192(c)(1)].]

[Gross vehicular manslaughter is a lesser crime than gross vehicular

manslaughter while intoxicated.]

To prove that the defendant is guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter,

the People must prove that:

1. The defendant (drove a vehicle/operated a vessel);

2. While (driving that vehicle/operating that vessel), the defendant

committed (a/an) (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or]

otherwise lawful act that might cause death);

3. The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/

[or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) with gross

negligence;

3. AND

4. The defendant’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of

another person.

Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention,

or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death

or great bodily injury;

1. AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way

would create such a risk.

In other words, a person acts with gross negligence when the way he or

she acts is so different from how an ordinarily careful person would act

in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human

life or indifference to the consequences of that act.

[Gross negligence may include, based on the totality of the

circumstances, any of the following:

357

•Participating in a sideshow; (and/or)

•Participating in a motor vehicle speed contest on a highway;

(and/or)

•Speeding over 100 miles per hour.]

[A sideshowis an event in which two or more persons block or impede

traffic on a highway, for the purpose of performing motor vehicle stunts,

motor vehicle speed contests, motor vehicle exhibitions of speed, or

reckless driving, for spectators.]

[Participating in a motor vehicle speed contest includes a motor vehicle

race against another vehicle, a clock, or another timing device.]

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is

an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]

[A person facing a sudden and unexpected emergency situation not

caused by that person’s own negligence is required only to use the same

care and judgment that an ordinarily careful person would use in the

same situation, even if it appears later that a different course of action

would have been safer.]

[An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable

consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without

the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable

person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In

deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of

the circumstances established by the evidence.]

[There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if

it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more

than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only

factor that causes the death.]

[The People allege that the defendant committed the following

(misdemeanor[s]/ [and] infraction[s]): <insert

misdemeanor[s]/ infraction[s]>.

Instruction[s] tell[s] you what the People must prove in

order to prove that the defendant committed <insert

misdemeanor[s]/infraction[s]>.]

[The People [also] allege that the defendant committed the following

otherwise lawful act(s) that might cause death: <insert

act[s] alleged>.]

[You may not find the defendant guilty unless all of you agree that the

People have proved that the defendant committed at least one alleged

(misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might

CALCRIM No. 592 HOMICIDE

358

cause death) and you all agree on which (misdemeanor[,]/ [or]

infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) the

defendant committed.]

[The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that

the defendant committed gross vehicular manslaughter. If the People

have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of that

crime. You must consider whether the defendant is guilty of the lesser

crime[s] of <insert lesser offense[s]>.]

New January 2006; Revised February 2015, September 2020, September 2023

BENCH NOTES

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the

crime.

The court has a sua sponte duty to specify the predicate misdemeanor(s) or

infraction(s) alleged and to instruct on the elements of the predicate offense(s).

(People v. Milham (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 487, 506 [205 Cal.Rptr. 688]; People v.

Ellis (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1339 [82 Cal.Rptr.2d 409].) In element 2, instruct

on either theory of vehicular manslaughter (misdemeanor/infraction or lawful act

committed with negligence) as appropriate. The court must also give the appropriate

instruction on the elements of the the predicate misdemeanor or infraction.

If causation is at issue, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on proximate

cause. (People v. Bernhardt (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 567, 590-591 [35 Cal.Rptr.

401].) If the evidence indicates that there was only one cause of death, the court

should give the “direct, natural, and probable” language in the first bracketed

paragraph on causation. If there is evidence of multiple causes of death, the court

should also give the “substantial factor” instruction in the second bracketed

paragraph on causation. (See People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 363 [43

Cal.Rptr.2d 135]; People v. Pike (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 732, 746-747 [243

Cal.Rptr. 54].)

There is a split in authority over whether there is a sua sponte duty to give a

unanimity instruction when multiple predicate offenses are alleged. (People v. Gary

(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1218 [235 Cal.Rptr. 30] [unanimity instruction

required, overruled on other grounds in People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 481

[76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180, 957 P.2d 869]; People v. Durkin (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d Supp.

9, 13 [252 Cal.Rptr. 735] [unanimity instruction not required but preferable]; People

v. Mitchell (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 216, 222 [232 Cal.Rptr. 438] [unanimity

instruction not required]; People v. Leffel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 575, 586-587 [249

Cal.Rptr. 906] [unanimity instruction not required, harmless error if was required].)

A unanimity instruction is included in a bracketed paragraph for the court to use at

its discretion.

HOMICIDE CALCRIM No. 592

359

If there is sufficient evidence and the defendant requests it, the court should instruct

on the imminent peril/sudden emergency doctrine. (People v. Boulware (1940) 41

Cal.App.2d 268, 269-270 [106 P.2d 436].) Give the bracketed sentence that begins

with “A person facing a sudden and unexpected emergency.”

The second sentence of the great bodily injury definition could result in error if the

prosecution improperly argues great bodily injury may be shown by greater than

minor injury alone. (Compare People v. Medellin (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 519,

533-535 [258 Cal.Rptr.3d 867] [the definition was reasonably susceptible to

prosecutor’s erroneous argument that the injury need only be greater than minor]

with People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457, 466 [260 Cal.Rptr.3d 86]

[upholding instructions containing great bodily injury definition as written].)

AUTHORITY

• Gross Vehicular Manslaughter. Pen. Code, § 192(c)(1).

• Gross Vehicular Manslaughter During Operation of a Vessel. Pen. Code,

§ 192.5(a).

• Unlawful Act Dangerous Under the Circumstances of Its Commission. People v.

Wells (1996) 12 Cal.4th 979, 982 [50 Cal.Rptr.2d 699, 911 P.2d 1374].

• Specifying Predicate Unlawful Act. People v. Milham, supra, 159 Cal.App.3d at

p. 506.

• Elements of Predicate Unlawful Act. People v. Ellis, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p.

1339.

• Unanimity Instruction. People v. Gary, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d at p. 1218,

overruled on other grounds in People v. Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 481;

People v. Durkin, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d Supp. at p. 13; People v. Mitchell,

supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 222; People v. Leffel, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at pp.

586-587.

• Gross Negligence. People v. Bennett (1992) 54 Cal.3d 1032, 1036 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d

8, 819 P.2d 849].

• Examples of Gross Negligence. Pen. Code, § 192(e)(2).

• “Motor Vehicle Speed Contest” Defined. Veh. Code, § 23109(a).

• “Sideshow” Defined. Veh. Code, § 23109(i)(2)(A).

• Causation. People v. Rodriguez (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 433, 440 [8 Cal.Rptr.

863].

• Imminent Peril/Sudden Emergency Doctrine. People v. Boulware, supra, 41

Cal.App.2d at p. 269.

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES

• Vehicular Manslaughter With Ordinary Negligence. Pen. Code, § 192(c)(2); see

People v. Verlinde (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1165-1166 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d

322].

CALCRIM No. 592 HOMICIDE

360

• Manslaughter During Operation of a Vessel Without Gross Negligence. Pen.

Code, § 192.5(b).

RELATED ISSUES

Predicate Act Need Not Be Inherently Dangerous

“[T]he offense which constitutes the ‘unlawful act’ need not be an inherently

dangerous misdemeanor or infraction. Rather, to be an ‘unlawful act’ within the

meaning of section 192(c)(1), the offense must be dangerous under the

circumstances of its commission. An unlawful act committed with gross negligence

would necessarily be so.” (People v. Wells, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 982.)

Lawful Act in an Unlawful Manner: Negligence

The statute uses the phrase “lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful

manner.” (Pen. Code, § 192(c)(1).) “[C]ommitting a lawful act in an unlawful

manner simply means to commit a lawful act with negligence, that is, without

reasonable caution and care.” (People v. Thompson (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 40, 53

[93 Cal.Rptr.2d 803].) Because the instruction lists the negligence requirement as

element 3, the phrase “in an unlawful manner” is omitted from element 2 as

repetitive.

SECONDARY SOURCES

1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against the

Person, §§ 262-268.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,

Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][a][i] (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 140,

Challenges to Crimes, § 140.04, Ch. 142, Crimes Against the Person,

§ 142.02[1][a], [2][c], [4] (Matthew Bender).

HOMICIDE CALCRIM No. 592

361

Page last reviewed April 2025