## Facts

- David James Armitage and his friend Peter Maskovich drank together at a bar in Freeport, California, and left around midnight on May 18, 1985.
- In the early morning, the men took Armitage’s small aluminum boat onto the Sacramento River while intoxicated.
- Armitage operated the boat at high speed; the boat had no personal flotation devices.
- The boat capsized, throwing both men into the water; they initially held onto the overturned hull.
- Maskovich released the hull and attempted to swim to shore despite Armitage’s warning to stay with the boat.
- Maskovich drowned.
- Armitage was convicted of felony drunk boating causing death under former Harbors and Navigation Code § 655(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the “act forbidden by law” / “duty imposed by law” element of former Harbors and Navigation Code § 655(c) includes boating safety regulations and other Harbors and Navigation Code provisions, making the evidence sufficient.
2. Whether Maskovich’s decision to leave the capsized boat and swim to shore was a superseding cause that negated proximate causation.
3. Whether the prosecution failed to establish corpus delicti independent of Armitage’s admissions, rendering those admissions inadmissible.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that “law” in § 655(c) includes safety regulations and other statutory provisions governing vessel operation.
- The court held that operating the vessel recklessly or negligently and at an unsafe speed could satisfy the “act forbidden by law” / “duty imposed by law” element, separately or together.
- The court held the victim’s escape attempt was a foreseeable response to danger created by Armitage and did not break the causal chain.
- The court held independent evidence established that the charged crime was committed by someone, satisfying corpus delicti and permitting admission of Armitage’s statements.

## Legal Principles

- For former Harbors and Navigation Code § 655(c), the term “law” includes boating safety regulations adopted by the responsible agency and other applicable provisions of the Harbors and Navigation Code.
- A defendant’s intoxicated operation of a vessel, combined with unlawful operation such as reckless/negligent operation or unsafe speed, may satisfy the statute’s requirement of an unlawful act or neglected legal duty causing death.
- A victim’s foreseeable attempt to escape a peril created by the defendant is not a superseding cause and does not negate proximate causation in a criminal prosecution.
- Corpus delicti requires independent evidence that a crime occurred and was committed by someone; once shown, a defendant’s admissions may be admitted to prove identity and additional elements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Armitage’s felony conviction for drunk boating causing death, construing “law” broadly to include boating regulations and related statutes, finding causation despite the victim’s attempted swim to shore, and concluding the prosecution sufficiently established corpus delicti without relying on Armitage’s admissions.


People v. Armitage, 194 Cal. App. 3d 405, 239 Cal. Rptr. 515 (Ct. App. 1987)