- North Carolina Criminal Law - https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu -

Criminal Negligence

Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) means recklessness or carelessness that shows a thoughtless disregard of consequences or a heedless indifference to the safety and rights of others. State v. Jones, 353 N.C. 159 (2000); State v. Early, 232 N.C. 717, 720 (1950). The showing required to establish criminal negligence is less than the level of recklessness required to show malice for purposes of second-degree murder. State v. Mack, ___ N.C. App. ___, 697 S.E.2d 490, 494 (2010) (comparing culpable negligence to malice and concluding that for purposes of second-degree murder, the conduct must be done recklessly or wantonly as to manifest depravity of mind and disregard of human life). It is, however, more than the deviation from reasonable conduct required for civil tort liability. State v. Everhart, 291 N.C. 700, 702 (1977); State v. McAdams, 51 N.C. App. 140 (1981).

Examples of cases in which the evidence was sufficient to establish culpable negligence include:

In contrast to these cases are others in which the evidence was insufficient to establish culpable negligence. See, e.g., Everhart, 291 N.C. 700 (no evidence of culpable negligence when the defendant, a young girl with a 72 I.Q. gave birth to a baby unassisted and while lying on the floor and then dropped the baby while trying to put him on a bed; thinking the baby was dead, the defendant wrapped the baby in a blanket; a medical expert concluded that the baby was accidentally smothered or died of neonatal respiratory failure (the failure to have proper stimulation to cause continued breathing)).

Criminal negligence also may be established by an intentional, willful, or wanton violation of a statute designed for the protection of human life or limb. Jones, 353 N.C. at 165. For example, in State v. Powell, 336 N.C. 762 (1994), the defendant left his dogs unattended and not restrained and restricted to his property by fence in violation of Section 3-18 of the Winston-Salem Code, and the violation was intentional, willful or wanton. This was found to be sufficient evidence of culpable negligence in an involuntary manslaughter prosecution brought after the dogs killed a jogger. Id. at 771-73. The issue of whether culpable negligence is established by a safety statute violation arises most frequently in impaired driving cases. In that regard, the courts have repeatedly held that G.S. 20-138.1, the statute prohibiting drivers from operating motor vehicles while under the influence of impairing substances, is a safety statute designed for the protection of human life and limb and its violation constitutes culpable negligence as a matter of law. Jones, 353 N.C. at 165. Other motor vehicle safety statutes that can give rise to culpable negligence include G.S. 20-141 (speed restrictions) and G.S. 20-146 (drive on right side of highway). Jones, 353 N.C. at 165. When a safety statute is unintentionally violated, culpable negligence exists where the violation is “accompanied by recklessness of probable consequences of a dangerous nature, when tested by the rule of reasonable [foreseeability], amounting altogether to a thoughtless disregard of consequences or of a heedless indifference to the safety of others.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Culpable negligence sometimes is stated as an element of an offense. See Replogle, 181 N.C. App. at 581 (defining involuntary manslaughter to include culpable negligence); G.S. 14-32.2 (defining patient abuse to include certain culpably negligent conduct). For other offenses, the courts have held that the requisite intent can be implied from culpable negligence. Jones, 353 N.C. at 166 (so noting as to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill); Spellman, 167 N.C. App. at 384 (so noting as to assaults and so holding as to assault with a deadly weapon on a government official); State v. Oakman, 191 N.C. App. 796 (2008) (same as to felonious child abuse). However, culpable negligence cannot be used to imply the necessary intent for first-degree felony murder. Jones, 353 N.C. 159 (explaining that for felony murder, an actual intent to commit the underlying felony is required).

Finally, a small number of North Carolina Crimes require only negligence, not criminal negligence. Although there are no cases on point, these statutes presumably incorporate the civil law negligence standard of failure to use due care. They include:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
4 Comments (Open | Close)

4 Comments To "Criminal Negligence"

#1 Comment By M.B. Hardy On April 12, 2012 @ 12:18 PM

On December 23, 2011, Jasmine Thar, a 16-year-old African American, was shot and killed while in a family friend’s front yard in Chadbourn, North Carolina.[1] Is this not that?

When the shot rang out, Jasmine was preparing for a routine shopping trip to Myrtle Beach and doing what most teens do, texting. Two others, her godmother, Treka McMillian, and Ms. McMillian’s niece, were also injured in the shooting. It was Ms. McMillian’s mother’s front yard they were in, at the time.

The 23-year-old Caucasian male who fired the fatal shot from the house across the street claims it was an accident. He was taken in for questioning but never charged with a crime. Criminal negligence and manslaughter come to mind.

1. [6]

#2 Pingback By DWI Not a Basis for First Degree Murder in NC | North Carolina Criminal Law On September 28, 2015 @ 5:00 AM

[…] actual intent to inflict injury or culpable negligence from which such intent may be implied. Culpable (or criminal) negligence is recklessness or carelessness that demonstrates a thoughtless disregard of consequences or a […]

#3 Pingback By Involuntary Manslaughter: A Recent Case and a Quick Review | North Carolina Criminal Law On February 27, 2016 @ 11:34 AM

[…] covers culpably negligent acts or omissions. I previously discussed criminal negligence in a post here. Briefly, criminal negligence means a carelessness or recklessness showing a thoughtless disregard […]

#4 Comment By Camlio Serna On March 14, 2020 @ 10:42 AM

Would this also apply to a wife that intentionally let her husband die by denying him medical assistance? She had stated to 3 other people (Whom do not know one another) that her husband would be better off dead then go through a divorce. I’ve been reading case law and my understanding is when a special relationship exists (including spouses) have a duty to provide or to rescue the other. Can someone please clarify this for me? I want to make sure I am not reading things incorrectly. Thank you.