Responsabilidad en casos de accidentes y negligencia criminal en Georgia

Explicación Simple

En Georgia, si alguien causa un accidente manejando de manera peligrosa, no puede alegar que fue un accidente. También, si alguien dispara intencionalmente, no puede decir que fue un accidente para evitar ser culpable.

Es como cuando juegas a la pelota y rompes una ventana. Si lo hiciste sin querer mientras jugabas, eso es un accidente. Pero si lo hiciste a propósito, no puedes decir que fue un accidente solo porque no querías romper la ventana.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan está muy enojado porque su novia está saliendo con Pedro. Un día, ve a Pedro y, en un arranque de ira, le dispara a través de una ventana. En este caso, Juan no puede alegar que fue un accidente, porque actuó intencionalmente.

Penalidades

null

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

al act. Dimas v. State, 276 Ga. App. 245 , 622 S.E.2d 914 (2005). Defendant was not entitled to a jury charge on accident since the accident occurred as the defendant was driving recklessly. Dryden v. State, 316 Ga. App. 70 , 728 S.E.2d 245 (2012). Charge not authorized when defendant deliberately fired through window. - When in a murder trial the defendant testified to deliberately firing through a glass window pane at a large figure, a charge on accident was not authorized. Duke v. State, 256 Ga. 671 , 352 S.E.2d 561 (1987). Charges on accident and criminal negligence proper. - Trial court did not err in charging the jury on the definition of criminal negligence in addition to including the bracketed "criminal negligence" language in the pattern instruction on accident as the jury was not confused by the charge and was not led to believe that it could substitute criminal negligence for malice; the trial court gave a complete charge on criminal intent and properly charged the jury on murder and malice. Yeager v. State, 281 Ga. 1 , 635 S.E.2d 704 (2006). Jury authorized to convict defendant. - Evidence supported a defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter as there was ample evidence that the state disproved the defendant's accident defense since: (1) the defendant was hurt by the fact that the defendant's significant other had begun a relationship with the victim; (2) the defendant threatened to blow the victim's and the significant other's heads off a few weeks bef