People v. Howk – California

Nature of the Case

Howk and Horowitz (D) appealed a judgment in which Howk was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death, and Horowitz was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Facts

Howk told Horowitz that he needed a gun to kill his girlfriend Sonja. Horowitz told Howk that the best way to get away with murder was to make it look like a hunting accident and that he would furnish a gun. Horowitz gave a gun to Howk but returned it, stating that he did not have the guts to use it.

Eight days later, Howk told Horowitz that he wanted a gun to protect himself. Horowitz sold him a gun for $40 which Howk later used in a homicide. Horowitz’s friend Pieper expressed his concern regarding Howk’s mental state and warned him not give Howk a gun.

After the murder Horowitz cooperated with the police and admitted that he had given the gun to Howk. There was no other evidence aside from Horowitz’s out of court confession. Horowitz was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and appealed, contending that his confession alone was insufficient to satisfy the corpus delicti rule that a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of an uncorroborated out of court confession.

Issues

  1. To what extent must a confession be corroborated in order to convict?
  2. Can criminal negligence amount to a lack of due caution and circumspection?

Holding and Rule of Law

  1. The only corroboration of a confession needed to convict a defendant of a crime is the connection of the defendant to the crime.
  2. Yes. Criminal negligence can amount to a lack of due caution and circumspection.

Horowitz was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter can result from the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. The evidence against Horowitz consists of the testimony of Howk, statements given by Horowitz voluntarily on the day of the murder or shortly thereafter, and of the testimony of several witnesses, some of whom were friends or acquaintances of Howk, or of Horowitz, or of both. Horowitz did not testify on his own behalf.

This evidence was sufficient to show the required criminal negligence. Horowitz sold Howk a gun on the day of the killing and used it to kill Sonja and to attempt suicide. It was a possible and reasonable inference that Horowitz knew when he sold the gun to Howk that Howk wanted to use it to kill Sonja. The only corroboration necessary of this evidence is that which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. The corroborative evidence may be slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone. In the present case the evidence showed that Sonja died from a bullet wound in the back of her head fired by a gun owned by Horowitz, and Howk was observed inflicting the wound. This proved the corpus delicti not only as against Howk but as against any other principal. Here, the guilt of Horowitz was not established solely by evidence of an admission on an occasion other than this trial.

Disposition

Affirmed.


Related posts: