What is the minimum that you can be charged for 1st degree reckless homicide if convicted?
408227
thats a pretty bad situation!! my friend had two beers on her way to walmart and a women was stopped in the middle of the road and a big truck got over to keep for hitting her and my friend didnt have time to stop and it killed the women...my freind got 10yrs in prison and has two small children.its very sad both ways...
557334
I believe it would depend on-IF you add court cost,or  just the ticket itself.Are other citations added in as well? I almost got five years for what the officer (claimed to be "fleeing and alluding").High risk insurance an issue as well?Attorney fees start at about $5000 just for a retainer each of my four reckless endangerments(165-mph in a 35-mph zone)for instance.I got one ticket in Tennessee $5 fine $90 cort cost 17 years ago. P.S. not to mention car impound fees.  All just a wasted youth!!!
603630
This is one of those situations where the law seems to be such a cold comfort.  4 years for 100 deaths (even though under the law involuntary manslaughter is the second-lowest degree of homicide) sounds wholly inappropriate.  But taken in context, a harsher sentence would have been disproportionate to the degree of responsibility.  His conduct was merely negligent.  It was not reckless nor deliberate and should not be punished as such.\nHowever, his negligence does open him to civil liability by the families of the victims for wrongful death.
446903
Murder implys intent or malice; manslaughter is legally defined as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied.
611120
All crimes require intent. Murder[1] requires "intent to kill"\nThe intent is clearly lacking in this case. So even if it was an Adult he could not be convicted of murder.\nThis is at most negligent homicide[2]. I.E. a person failed to removed the pillow by negligence and let a child die.\nSo if it was an adult he would be convicted of that.\nBut a child is usually deemed not capable of negligence[3] because he cannot foresee the result of his actions. \nSo there would be no charges.
1031481
It depends on the state.; you can either access the state codes through the internet (Anderson's) or a local library. Some offenses have no statute of repose or statute of limitations on prosecution, such as murder. If you cannot find the information you're seeking, I would suggest contacting a law school nearby to see if they have a legal clinic to help you with the research.
932755
You're  not going to jail on a 1st offence misdemenor assault, not to worry.  Make sure your witnesses are their in court for you.  Don't settle for a plea agreement other than J-walking.  Your Attorney should be able to show that the other guys witnesses are bogus.
330269
The debate is basically whether you should be charged with a felony because of the possibility of causing serious harm/death, even if you do not actually cause it.\n\nTreating it as a felony basically says that you either intended to cause harm, or that you so didn't care (recklessness) that it's the same as if you intended it. This basically treats drunk driving as attempted vehicular manslaughter.\n\nThe counter-argument is that if no harm does result, then absent any actual intent, you should be penalized only for what you did, rather than what might have happened. For example, is there a difference between driving drunk through a busy neighborhood at 3 in the afternoon when kids are playing, versus driving drunk on a deserted road outside town at 3 in the morning? What is the relative likelihood of serious harm/death in each situation? If the likelihood of harm/death is not the same, and no harm actually results, (and we'll assume no actual intent) why should they both be treated the same?\n\nThe punishment for a crime should fit the crime. This includes fitting the mental state (intent, recklessness, carelessness, etc) and it should fit the actual (or intended) outcome. That's why many states consider a first (or even subsequent) offense of drunk driving, where no actual harm results, as a minor offense; but repeated offenders (thus increasing the likely risk of harm) or those who actually do cause serious harm/death get nailed for it.
325440
No, it's fair to kill someone who is attempting to kill you. Once the danger passes, it becomes revenge, and revenge is not legally recognized as a justification for a homicide. You'll get more satisfaction out of the life you have left if you press charges for the assault and the theft, and keep a liberal distance from her in the future.
194710
Not as many years as you should be sentenced to for being guilty of slaughtering and assaulting the English language. Oh my gosh! "Found guilty," "manslaughter," "assault."\n\nBut I'm not winning any friends that way. Here's an answer to your question:\n\nIt depends upon the jurisdiction, whether the judge has to use mandatory minimum sentencing, whether the guilty person had a prior record, whether s/he is a juvenile. It depends upon whether the person was found guilty in a trial and the sentence was recommended by a jury, or decided strictly by the judge; or, whether the defendant took a plea bargain from the district attorney and allocuted to the crime in front of a judge; and, whether the judge followed the sentencing recommendations laid out in the plea bargain. \n\nIn some jurisdictions the charges that you have mentioned are simple and straightforward; in others, there may be degrees of seriousness of each. In New York, there is manslaughter in the "first degree" and in the "second degree." They mean different things and have different punishments associated with them.\n\nIf this person is awaiting or in the middle of the trial, the jury will possibly have some say over whether lesser-included charges can dictate the sentence. There are two ways: one is by "jury nullification," where they come up with their own charge (very rare); another is that in some jurisdictions the jury can be instructed to find a person guilty of the most serious crime that the person has committed if they believe that the prosecutor has proven guilt, but not all of the facts of the highest charge. For instance: if someone were charged with manslaughter, and was obviously guilty of involvement in the murder but had not intended to kill the victim, the jury might be able to come back with a verdict of negligent homicide.\n\nOther factors: how much time did the person spend in jail before and after the indictment? Will that be deducted from the final sentence as time-served? Is the DA trying the person for both manslaughter and aggravated assault, or is the second somehow a lesser-included charge? Will the judge run the sentences consecutively or concurrently? (The defendant might get 7 years for manslaughter and 2 for aggravated assault. If concurrent, the max is 7 years; if consecutive, the person is being sentenced to 9 years.)\n\nYour question, though, is about how many years the person would serve. Besides the variables in sentencing, there would be considerations for good behavior and decisions by the parole board. So there's no way, with the information that you've given, that anyone could tell you exactly how long the defendant you describe would have to stay in jail.
368475
It depends on the intent when the crime was committed. Ex. Murder one is premeditated with malicious intent.
336231
likely some jail time, considering the amount in question.  since it's the 1st offense, i wouldn't say it's a significant am't of time.  restitution is a given, and probation thereafter...at least 18 mos.
697634
The amount as penalty for disorderly conduct is very minimal because it is a simple misdemeanor.
410546
If the perp had actually succeeded than I know that the statute of limitations never runs out on murder...attempted murder, I can only assume is relatively close...or it's got to be at least 20 years or something.  I would think.\n\nYou should be able to call an attorney and ask for a free consultation, or call the attorney general's office 469-241-6500, someone there should be able to direct you.
501925
In any state, reckless endangerment is any person in possession of a firearm who recklessly and sometimes knowingly handles a firearm in a manner in which the potential for another individual to be harmed or possibly harmed is present. If there was no mechanical defect such as a faulty firing pin,etc. then, if the accidental shooting results in death, you're looking at possible manslaughter charges. If a party is injured, then most likely it will go somewhere. The discretion lies entirely with the lead investigator and the D.A.'s office.
181012
Culpable homicide \nis a term in the law of Scotland which covers a number of different types of criminal homicide, roughly equivalent to manslaughter in English law and manslaughter in other legal criminal jurisdictions.\n\nThey are all part of this one category in that they are cases where death is caused by improper conduct and where the guilt is less than murder. Culpable homicide is often broken down into "voluntary culpable homicide" and "involuntary culpable homicide".\n\nMurder\nIn criminal law, murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (traditionally termed "malice aforethought") (see attempted murder where the mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind") requirement is limited). In some common law jurisdictions, an accused is not guilty of murder if the victim lives for longer than a year and a day after the attack. This reflects the likelihood that, if the victim has survived so long after the initial attack, there will be other factors contributing to the cause of death and so break the chain of causation. Subject to the local statute of limitation, the accused can still be charged with an offense representing the seriousness of the initial assault. But, with the advance of modern medicine, the majority of countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts. In most countries murder is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law. As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions.
42264
In the state of Minnesota:\n\n (a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.\n\n(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.