Overview of Louisiana’s Negligent Homicide Law

Louisiana categorizes negligent homicide as the lowest grade of criminal homicide. However, that does not mean these cases are easy to handle. (1) Negligent homicide occurs in two situations under La. R.S. 14:32: The first is when a person kills someone by criminal negligence, and (2) the second situation is that an animal (such as a dog) one kills another human being out of the recklessness as contrasted with negligent care. This legislation explicitly states that violating a safety statute or local ordinance will only be presumptive evidence of negligence and the prosecutor must still prove that the defendant’s conduct constituted a substantial deviation from what could be expected of an average prudent person under similar circumstances.

Up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000 must be imposed upon convicts of negligent homicide, those left to do hard labor without probation or parole for at least two years when the victim is under ten years old. Yet when someone is killed as a result of the defendant’s having operated a vehicle, aircraft or boat and his own alcohol is found in his blood: the judge must indicate in writing whether no prison term was given on probation only. When someone is accidentally killed by a dog, the owner can be put through the same punishment. When a dog or other animal is the instrument of death, the owner faces the same range of punishment.

Several exceptions protect lawful animal handlers. Neglected topics include search and rescue, guide dogs and even police dogs. Instances where an intruder is injured, whether in one’s own home or in business premises or a car, are also excluded. The exclusion extends to unintentional injuries caused by livestock. Exclusions like these suppose not all incidents involving animals are caused by criminal neglect.

The statute also defines key terms. Someone is considered an owner of an animal if they feed, shelter or have custody of it for at least three consecutive days. “Livestock” includes cattle, horses, goats, sheep, pigs, poultry and other farmed or exotic animals. These definitions matter because the dog‑owner portion of the statute applies only to owners, not casual handlers.

Because negligent homicide is part of the homicide chapter, it can be confusing to think about how it differs from crimes like manslaughter. The key difference is the mental state required. Manslaughter involves an intentional killing that is mitigated by sudden passion or heat of blood, while negligent homicide punishes extreme carelessness—a gross disregard for human life. The legislature created negligent homicide to cover situations where someone causes a death through conduct that is more egregious than ordinary negligence but less culpable than manslaughter.

As the founder of The Ambeau Law Firm, I have represented many clients charged with negligent homicide and other grades of homicide. Understanding the line between tragic accidents and criminal negligence is critical. In this article I explain the elements of negligent homicide, typical defenses, recent case law, and what you should know if you or a loved one faces such a charge. My goal is to offer a clear, approachable resource for laypeople and attorneys alike.

Elements Required for Conviction

To convict someone of negligent homicide, the State must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Those elements vary slightly depending on whether the death was caused by a person or by an animal.

Killing of a Human by Criminal Negligence

1. Death of a human being. A person died as a result of the defendant’s conduct.
2. Criminal negligence. This is the heart of the offense. Under La. R.S. 14:12, “criminal negligence exists when, although neither specific nor general criminal intent is present, there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender’s conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected of a reasonably careful person under like circumstances”. The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Scheler emphasised that criminal negligence does not require any intent; instead it punishes conduct that shows a reckless disregard for human safety. Ordinary negligence or simple carelessness is not enough. The court has said that ordinary negligence “does not constitute proof of criminal negligence” and the State must show more than a mere deviation from the standard of care.
3. Causal connection. The prosecution had to prove whether the defendant was a co-party in the crime and therefore at least guilty of reckless. In state v Martin, this court held that the accused could not be convicted as a principal unless he was part of the crime and where his criminal negligence played a significant role in causing death. The conduct does not need to be the only cause; joint contributors may each be convicted if their negligence contributed substantially.

4. Jurisdiction and venue. The death must occur within Louisiana’s jurisdiction. Venue is usually where the death occurred, but there are special rules for deaths that happen in one parish and injuries in another.

Killing by a Dog or Other Animal

1. Death caused by an animal. A dog or other animal killed a human.
2. Ownership. The defendant owned the animal. Ownership is broadly defined as feeding, sheltering or having custody for three or more consecutive days.
3. Reckless and criminally negligent confinement or restraint. The owner must have been reckless and criminally negligent in confining or restraining the animal. For example, allowing an aggressive dog to roam freely in a residential area could constitute criminal negligence; tethering a trained, non‑aggressive dog that escapes due to a freak accident may not.
4. No statutory exception. The attack must not fall into one of the exceptions for law‑enforcement dogs, search‑and‑rescue dogs, service dogs, lawful property defense or livestock.

Short‑Form Indictments

Supreme court agreed with this objection, and concluded that this is at best a deficiency provided Weather by’s shortened him guilty to second defree murder victims thar have been constitutionally charaged. Therefore, defendants usually do not challenge an indictment on the basis that it lacks details; instead, they must request a bill of particulars or seek discovery.

No Intent Required

Mistake Mistake murder is different from all other criminal acts because the distinction between specific and general purpose is irrelevant to negligence. The objective nature of behavior is emphasized in law.The Supreme Court expressly rejected an earlier view that criminal negligence required an intent to injure. Modern law considers whether the conduct reflects a reckless disregard for human life rather than whether the defendant had malicious intent.

Reasonable Defenses to Negligent Homicide

Being charged with negligent homicide does not mean a conviction is inevitable. There are several defenses that can defeat or mitigate the charge. At The Ambeau Law Firm we explore every possible defense, including:

1. Ordinary Negligence or Accident

The State must prove criminal negligence—a gross deviation from the standard of care—not just ordinary negligence. In State v. Rock, the appellate court reiterated that ordinary negligence does not establish criminal negligence and that the State must show more than a mere deviation. In State v. Moak, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction because the defendant, who was driving within the speed limit and misjudged the shoulder, did not act recklessly; the State offered no evidence of more than ordinary negligence. If the defendant acted like a reasonably careful person—responding to unexpected hazards, adhering to traffic laws or exercising caution with a firearm—then a negligent homicide conviction should not stand.

2. Intervening or Contributory Causes

Another defense is that an intervening act—by the victim or a third party—was the sole or predominant cause of death. For example, if a dog escapes because a trespasser cuts the fence or if the decedent’s own reckless driving caused the collision, the defendant may argue the causal chain is broken. Louisiana law requires the defendant’s criminal negligence to be a substantial factor in causing the death. If the prosecution cannot prove this, an acquittal is warranted.

3. Statutory Exceptions for Dogs and Animals

When a death results from a dog attack, the statute includes several exceptions: law‑enforcement dogs, search‑and‑rescue dogs, guide or service dogs, and dogs defending a dwelling, business or vehicle from an intruder. If one of these exceptions applies, the owner cannot be convicted of negligent homicide. In addition, the statute does not apply to livestock; injuries by cows, horses or other farm animals fall under other civil or criminal provisions.

4. Identification of the Actor

It is incumbent for the prosecution to affirm that the accused achieved these criminally negligent actions essentially in fact. As in State v. Coleman (2012) – with surveillance footage showing someone firing guns and testimony about who discharged what into each other’s necks–the judge held that There was not enough evidence to say its petitioner fired a shot. The court noted that the video did not clearly show who fired, ballistic evidence was not tested, and witnesses identified another shooter. Because the State could not prove causation or identity of perpetrator, conviction was reversed. But if someone else might have driven the car or loaded and fired the gun, maybe it simply isn’t so.

5. Self‑Defense or Defense of Others

Negligent homicide prosecutions arising out of firearms may involve claims of self‑defense. While self‑defense is more commonly associated with intentional killings, it can be relevant where the alleged criminal negligence occurred in the course of defending oneself. For example, in State v. Parker a defendant was accused of negligent homicide after firing through a door without knowing who was outside According to the court’s decision, there was persuasive evidence available on which to convict the defendant for manslaughter through negligence. The prosecution announced that it closed its case because there was no evidence to support the self‐defense claim, unless defendant genuinely believed someone standing outside his home was trying enter and damage him. The jury may find that such conduct is not criminal negligence, when it shows a reasonable fear under the circumstances and an appropriate action in response to that situation.

6. Constitutional and Procedural Challenges

defendants may also take issue with the sufficiency of the indictment, jury instructions or evidence. In Scheler, the defendant contended the indictment was deficient; however, the court affirmed the short form after holding that the indictment contained sufficient particularization. But in other cases where jury instructions were not set right by the court or there occurred prosecutorial error, if an appellate court determines that those misdescriptions interferred with defendant’s core constitutional protections, it can be treated as “fundamental error.” Moreover, where the offense is contested a motion to quash will succeed only rarely as defendant can show in that case.

Case Law Illustrating Elements and Defenses

Louisiana appellate courts have built a substantial body of jurisprudence interpreting negligent homicide. Below are notable cases that illustrate the elements and defenses discussed above:

State v. Scheler (1962)

Scheler was convicted of negligent homicide after driving the wrong way in the eastbound lane of Airline Highway and colliding head‑on with another car. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and described criminal negligence as “such disregard of the interest of others that the offender’s conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected of a reasonably careful man”. The court noted that intent is not an element of negligent homicide and that the short form indictment is constitutionally sufficient. Scheler’s case demonstrates that driving in the wrong lane constitutes a gross deviation and supports a conviction when someone is killed.

State v. Martin (1989)

In Martin, the defendant was convicted as a principal to negligent homicide after a high‑speed “drag race” resulted in a fatal collision. The Supreme Court held that to convict a principal the State must prove the accused was “concerned in the commission” and acted with criminal negligence. The court explained that criminal negligence exists when there is a gross deviation from a reasonable standard, and that the defendant’s conduct need not be the sole cause of death; it is enough that it was a substantial factor. Martin is frequently cited to show that multiple parties can be criminally liable when their combined negligence causes a death.

State v. Moak (1980)

Moak involved a driver who saw what he believed were headlights of an oncoming car, applied his brakes and pulled onto what he thought was the shoulder, but instead entered a ditch and struck a parked car, killing a child. The court held that there was no evidence of criminal negligence because the defendant was within the speed limit and responded to perceived danger; there was no evidence of reckless disregard. Moak illustrates that mere accidents or ordinary negligence do not amount to negligent homicide.

State v. Knight (2010)

Knight stands for the proposition that driving with a blood alcohol level more than twice the legal limit generally constitutes a gross deviation. In the opinion of this court, where evidence showed that the defendant had intoxication level well above. 26 percent and expert witnesses testified to overcome impairment from drinking, there was a gross deviation in standard of care. Knight indicates that a person who is tipsy may transform an innocent accident into a case of criminal negligence, where it interferes with his ability to operate safely as a driver.

State v. Mears (1984) and State v. Wheat (1985)

In Mears, the defendant drove without headlights on a dark night after drinking alcohol, swerved across the road and struck a pedestrian. The court ruled that this conduct was a gross deviation and affirmed the conviction. In Wheat, the defendant’s drunk driving at excessive speed in a residential area led to a fatal collision, and the court again found criminal negligence. These cases illustrate that combining alcohol with dangerous driving often satisfies the gross deviation standard.

State v. Brown (1976)

In a tough wrestling match, Brown drew a loaded gun at the defendant, knocked the head of the victim head with a pull on the trigger and continued to try shooting while others attempted to disarm him.According to the Supreme Court, this kind of “reckless, wanton and unthinking” behavior is a serious deviation from what is reasonable under the law so as to make out for veritable manslaughter conviction in his case of fatal consequences.This case shows that mishandling a deadly weapon in hazardous proximity to others may rise to the level of criminal negligence without respect to whether shooting actually took place at all.

State v. Deville, Willis, Parker and Robinson (1982‑1984)

Several appellate cases address whether self‑defense or provocation negates criminal negligence. In Deville, the defendant shot her husband during a struggle over a gun; the court held her conduct was a gross deviation and upheld the conviction. Conversely, in Willis, a different appellate court found that circumstantial evidence of a struggle and the victim’s aggressiveness was insufficient to prove criminal negligence. Parker held that firing blindly through a door, knowing family members were expected to return, provided adequate evidence of criminal negligence. Robinson held that entering a trailer with a loaded pistol during a heated argument was evidence of criminal negligence. These cases show that whether conduct is criminally negligent often turns on the circumstances—jury fact‑finding is critical.

State v. Coleman (2022)

The defendant in Coleman was convicted based on video evidence showing someone firing a gun during a fight. The appellate court reversed because the video did not clearly show who fired the fatal shots, ballistics were not tested and eyewitnesses identified another shooter. The case highlights the importance of establishing identity and causation; without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct caused the death, a negligent homicide conviction cannot stand.

State v. Desoto (2009)

There was an episode to involve Desoto in hunting an animal deer. In this case, the defendant fired at his quarry without making certain that what he aimed for was not a human. The other hunter so shot died of his injuries. As such behavior- shooting without first making sure of your target what lies beyond—all District Judges since 1990 recognize ( A. 271 ) these Incidents constitute CRIMINALLY PROCURED NEGLIGENCE. Desoto is a reminder that hunters must take time to clearly identify their targets. Such neglect can prove fatal: it will result in conviction for killing another person.

Full Text of La. R.S. 14:32 (Negligent Homicide)

Below is the full statutory text for reference (current through the 2024 legislative session).

A. Negligent homicide is either of the following:
(1) The killing of a human being by criminal negligence.
(2) The killing of a human being by a dog or other animal when the owner is reckless and criminally negligent in confining or restraining the dog or other animal.
B. The violation of a statute or ordinance shall be considered only as presumptive evidence of such negligence.
C. (1) Except as provided for in Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, whoever commits the crime of negligent homicide shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(2)(a) If the victim killed was under the age of ten years, the offender shall be imprisoned at hard labor, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, for not less than two nor more than ten years.
(b) If the court does not order the offender to a term of imprisonment when the fatality was caused by a person operating or controlling a vehicle and the offender’s blood alcohol contributed to the fatality, the court shall state the reasons for not sentencing the offender to a term of imprisonment.
(3) If the victim was killed by a dog or other animal and the owner was criminally negligent, the owner shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
D. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
(1) A law‑enforcement dog owned or used by a state or local agency for detecting criminal activity or apprehending offenders.
(2) A search‑and‑rescue dog responding to instructions from its handler during a search and rescue mission.
(3) A guide or service dog accompanying a blind, visually impaired or disabled person.
(4) An attack by a dog lawfully inside a dwelling, business or motor vehicle against a person unlawfully entering or present in that place.
(5) An attack by livestock.
E. For the purposes of this Section, “harboring or keeping” means feeding, sheltering or having custody over the animal for three or more consecutive days; “livestock” means various farmed animals such as cattle, horses, goats, pigs, poultry and farm‑raised exotics; and “owner” includes any person or entity who owns, harbors or keeps an animal.

How The Ambeau Law Firm Can Help

When you are charged with a negligent homicide, or if one of your family is, you need to get lawyers who know what must be done in order to make sure every technicality in the law is observed strictly a possible it becomes white hot clear that this really happened. After a decade spent representing defendants in Louisiana’s criminal courts and a track record in dozens of state or federal murder trials that are hard to beat, I’ve seen every kind there is: and then some—from first‑degree murder to negligent homicide. At the Ambeau Law Firm, every negligent homicide case is approached with meticulous care and a full understanding of the enormous strain our clients are under.

We know, often can’t tell whether something is a tragic accident or criminal negligence. To truly call someone criminally negligent, our team works with accident reconstruction experts (who never fail us in getting their facts right) today in the field of forensic toxicology and with medical specialists. We take careful note of every step in the accident’s development, interview all witnesses, examine closely evidence from the State on cause and identity of its victim. In animal cases we show further prosecution that our clients took adequate measures to restrain their animal(s), or this act itself does not apply for an exception in law still less makes his particular conduct at issue before us punishable under law as if nothing happened here at all. We also understand the subtleties of Louisiana’s short-form indictments and work hard to protect our clients’ procedural rights.

In our view, every client is important and not simply a numbered case. We will listen to your story, explain the law in plain English and then come up with a defense strategy tailored for your particular situation. Whether the result is negotiating a good plea or having to go on to trial, we aim at getting the best outcome possible. If you are under investigation or being charged with negligent homicide, please call The Ambeau Law Firm for a private consult. You deserve a lawyer who knows the law and science as well, and who can fight for your future.

State v. Scheler :: 1962 :: Louisiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Louisiana Case Law :: Louisiana Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

State v. Rock (571 So.2d 908) – vLex United States

State v. Martin :: 1989 :: Louisiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Louisiana Case Law :: Louisiana Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia