The "mistakenly" part is the opinion of the writer, despite her stating it as a fact.
If the jury decides it was unintentional, no matter how idiotic and reckless, then it won't be first-degree.
I can be as absent-minded as anybody. Recently spent 10 minutes looking for the pen behind my ear. But I simply cannot imagine "forgetting" about a baby in the car.
Would also like to point out that "safety" concerns have instructed parents to put the kids in the back seat. Pretty difficult to "forget" about the baby riding shotgun. I assume some at least of these incidents would have been prevented had the kid been in front.
But nobody ever considers that something done to prevent Risk A might increase Risk B. They just around and pat themselves on the back for reducing Risk B.
I’m assuming one day they will repeal these stupid laws. How many deaths it will take (including dogs!), I don’t know.
Of course, with two happily married gay men, who knows what went on with this.
The DA must be pushing for the max charge/sentence where the jury has the right to convict on a lesser charge.
That makes sense to me. In any event - this man should serve jail time.
Please ignore the obviously botched last paragraph. Arrgh.
I may be mistaken, but I believe this is considered risen to the level of “first degree” because the death was a result of the commission of another crime, here, illegal drug use.
I could be wrong.
The much larger decrease in risk A (crash deaths) far offsets the minor increase in risk B (hot car deaths).